<div><strong>June 2026 Update</strong>
</div>
<div>Thank you to everyone who has continued to support this effort; your generosity has made it possible to bring this case to court.
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>Our writ petition (Case No. 26CV00891) was filed on March 17th and is ongoing. We are currently in the process of preparing the administrative record; this is the most time-consuming and costly effort to date, as our attorney puts together the complete evidentiary record that the court will consider.
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div><em>In other news: </em>Following a 4-1 vote, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors sent a formal letter to the State housing agency (HCD), requesting that HCD correct the County's certification date to March 15th, 2024 - this is the <strong>same</strong> date that we are alleging in our writ. This letter was sent in March, after our petition was filed. The Board's letter incorporated much of the same public records evidence we collected and presented to support their formal request. 
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>What we're asking the court to decide remains straightforward: State law does not require a formal certification letter to determine when a jurisdiction is in compliance with Housing Element law. HCD's own records confirm that their substantive review concluded by March 15th, 2024, and that they were ready to certify 25 days before the developer filed. The certification letter that arrived weeks later was an administrative formality, not the legal trigger for Builder's Remedy eligibility.
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>What comes next: Briefing will begin in the weeks ahead, with our opening brief making the case to the court.
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>I will continue to update you as the case progresses. Thank you for your patience and continued support - this effort would not have been possible without you!
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>**Notable update**
</div>
<div>On March 17th, we filed a legal challenge to this project's approval in the Santa Cruz County Superior Court (see below for more details)
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>Hello — we are residents of the Live Oak community in Santa Cruz County. We are raising funds to cover legal costs associated with appealing the approval of a proposed apartment project at 841 Capitola Road.
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>The project proposes a <strong><em>five-story, 57-unit apartment</em></strong> building on a residentially zoned property that currently allows far fewer units (14). Although the property is located on Capitola Road, the project plans to route <strong><em>all </em></strong>vehicle traffic through Grey Seal Road, a quiet, kid-friendly, residential cul-de-sac. The proposal includes only 28 parking spaces (plus 3 ADA spaces) in an area that is not well-served by high-quality transit and has limited on-street parking capacity.
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>The developer is using California’s Builder’s Remedy law to bypass local zoning and development standards. Our concern is <strong><em>not with housing generally</em></strong>, but instead whether Builder’s Remedy law is legally applicable to this project. <strong><em>Without Builder’s Remedy, the developer would still be entitled to build housing</em></strong> on this site (which we support), but would need to comply with the property’s zoning and development standards.
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>Through public records requests to the County and the State housing agency (HCD), we obtained documents showing that the County had <strong><em>already finished </em></strong>the State’s substantive review of its Housing Element, and that <strong><em>both</em></strong> the County and the State understood it to be compliant before this project was submitted. If that’s the case, the Builder’s Remedy law would not apply here.
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>Even with these concerns, the Planning Commission approved the project as proposed. We appealed that decision and unanimously won our jurisdictional hearing before the County Board of Supervisors (5–0). As a result, the Board will now hear the project again from scratch at a new hearing on February 10, 2026, and will consider new evidence about when the County actually became compliant with State housing law - information the Planning Commission did not have at the time.
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>As of March 30th, 2026, we have paid approximately <strong><em>$26,800</em> </strong>in legal fees, including filings, discussions, research, letter-writing, and presenting before the Planning Commission and Board. All invoices can be shared upon request.
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>This GoFundMe is intended to cover:
</div>
<ul>
<li>attorney fees
</li>
<li>filing and administrative costs associated with the appeal
</li>
<li>potential future legal costs if court review becomes necessary
</li>
</ul>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>As with any legal proceeding, there is <strong><em>no guarantee of success</em></strong>. However, we are committed to presenting a careful, evidence-based case focused on the correct application of State housing law.
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>We appreciate any and all help that you could provide.
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>=================
</div>
<div>17March update:
</div>
<div>Hi everyone,
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>A heartfelt thank you to those who have supported this effort up until now, whether through donations or by sharing this campaign.
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>On March 17th, residents of Live Oak filed a legal challenge to the 841 Capitola Road development in Santa Cruz County’s Superior Court.
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>Our position is straightforward: The project was approved under the so-called “Builder’s Remedy,” which allows projects to avoid planning and zoning requirements as well as general building standards in jurisdictions that lack compliant housing elements, as determined by the Dept. of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>For Santa Cruz County, that state agency has confirmed in writing that their substantive review of our Housing Element was complete by March 15th, 2024 - the same day that they notified the County that they were ready to certify. The developer filed their Builder's Remedy application 25 days later. Under state law, Builder's Remedy wasn't available, and we're asking the court to say so.
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>If we prevail, the project will be subject to the same development standards that apply to everyone; it will not be able to bypass them by exploiting a loophole.
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>You can find our filing on the Santa Cruz County Superior Court docket, under #26CV00891
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>I will update the GoFundMe with more information as I get it.
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div><a href="https://portal.santacruzcourt.org/app/RegisterOfActions/#/57BC19B47CAD614C9D9A0480A5ACFA1005F36FACC2AA47C9FCC47D2C207DD46D/anon/portalembed" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><a href="https://portal.santacruzcourt.org/app/RegisterOfActions/#/57BC19B47CAD614C9D9A0480A5ACFA1005F36FACC2AA47C9FCC47D2C207DD46D/anon/portalembed" target="_blank" class="" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer">https://portal.santacruzcourt.org/app/RegisterOfActions/#/57BC19B47CAD614C9D9A0480A5ACFA1005F36FACC2AA47C9FCC47D2C207DD46D/anon/portalembed</a></a>
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>----
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>16Jan update:
</div>
<div>Hi everyone, few updates:
</div>
<div>- Our "de novo" Board hearing is scheduled for February 10th (more details to follow)
</div>
<div>- Our attorney will be presenting on our behalf, via Zoom, using the evidence we have gathered
</div>
<div>- I received a very substantial update from CA HCD over the holiday break which I believe significantly strengthens our case
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>I'll update this again as we get closer to the de novo hearing
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>Thank you for your continued support!
</div>
<div>----
</div>
<div>18Dec update:
</div>
<div>Hi everyone - we have an important update.
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>We unanimously won our jurisdictional appeal before the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. Both Supervisor Koenig and Supervisor Cummings spoke strongly in favor of the Board taking up the appeal, and the Board will now hear the project de novo, meaning it will re-hear the entire application from scratch.
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>The Santa Cruz Sentinel did an excellent write-up of the appeal: <a href="https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2025/12/11/santa-cruz-county-board-of-supervisors-order-another-review-of-capitola-road-housing-development/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><a href="https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2025/12/11/santa-cruz-county-board-of-supervisors-order-another-review-of-capitola-road-housing-development/" target="_blank" class="" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer">https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2025/12/11/santa-cruz-county-board-of-supervisors-order-another-review-of-capitola-road-housing-development/</a></a>
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>At the jurisdictional hearing, one key point that was raised was new evidence obtained through a Public Records Act request to the State housing agency (HCD). That evidence, which consists of an internal HCD memo and their review workflow, shows:
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>HCD completed its substantive review of the County’s Housing Element on March 15th and confirmed that it had “addressed prior feedback"
</div>
<div>On the same day, HCD notified County staff that it was “ready to certify,” which, under HCD’s own workflow, only occurs after review is complete
</div>
<div>No further changes were requested or made after March 15th, meaning there were no remaining review steps
</div>
<div>HCD admitted it had been pacing its work to the wrong deadline and had misinformed the County about that deadline. In other words, the County did everything on time while it worked towards an incorrect timeline, which it was given by HCD.
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>Taken together, this evidence raises serious questions about whether the County was <strong><em>actually</em></strong> out of compliance at the time this project was submitted. <strong><em>Builder’s Remedy applies only when a jurisdiction is out of compliance,</em></strong> and the Board will now consider this evidence directly at the upcoming de novo hearing.
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>Thank you all for your continued support — it truly made this step possible.
</div>
<div>----
</div>
<div>13Nov Update: Hi all, I wanted to provide an update on this fundraiser. Our appeal was filed on November 3rd - we're awaiting the date of the Board's jurisdictional hearing (I will know 10 days prior). The appeal will not be publically available until 3 days prior to the hearing. Our appeal focused on four main points:
</div>
<ul>
<li>The County's housing element was in substantial compliance with State laws prior to the date that this project was submitted, and therefore the project is not eligible for Builder's Remedy
</li>
<li>The proposal did not include a health and safety impact study for the many-fold increase in traffic
</li>
<li>The proposal has an access problem in that all of its residents will be funneled down our cul de sac onto the main road. The location of the project's bollards is arbirtrary and should be moved to mitigate the impact on our neighborhood
</li>
<li>The proposal's parking provision is woefully inadequate and the County has the power to challenge it
</li>
</ul>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>Our first argument, if successful, could affect how Builder’s Remedy eligibility is evaluated for other pending projects in the County; there's at least 3 that were submitted after the date we're arguing that the County was compliant by. Regardless of how, we believe this argument may ultimately require court review, given the legal questions involved.
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>I will provide more updates as time goes on.
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>Thank you for your support so far!
</div>

Allyson Brasuell

Anonymous

Donald Hardy

Margit Aramburu

Pamela Morgan

ANNE RITCHEY

Russell Chacon

Mark Deming

Robert Bremner

betty tambellini

patricia brady

James Berube

Help us fight for reasonable development in Live Oak

platform

Platform is iOS

Android

Adyen Google Pay Development Audience

$opt_dummy_attribute

English only

Deprecate Stripe Legacy

dyn_template_ids

Adyen V6 Bene Transfer & MyMoney Campaign Organizers - test01

Bene transfer V6 and AdyenV6MyMoney Campaign Organizers - production

OneTrust next-app audience

fundCountryCode

NextDoor Share Option Users

Fundraisers with Reactions feature capability

fundCurrencyCode

US + Non-charity COs Only

locale

fund country is US and user language is English

personId

comms-internal-person-ids

Enhanced Story Experience Users

Suggested Goal Experience Users

user language is English and fund country: US, AU, DK, FI, IE, NO, SE, CA, GB; 

Poster share - new funds eligible (newest 9/18)

Streaming widgets beta user

paymentProcessor

3DS payment method

user language is English and fundCountry: US, AU, DK, FI, IE, NO, SE, CA, GB; 

currencyCode

Money Box Donation List Prompt Experiment Audience

GoFundMe Employees

ipAddress

Mark Rieth IP Address

Version 9.2.0 and above

Fund is in English speaking country

desktop

Android v12.11.0 and above

Platform is Android

paymentMethodType

checkoutType

Payment method type group to be vaulted on success

admin pr kit prod

EUR Donation Upsell

Share Text generation Skip Fundraiser

(prod) new funds eligible for amp12 (UGC gallery)

fintrac_cad_idv_form_v2 audience

paymentProcessorAccountId

fallback mode accounts

proCampaignId

p2p legacy startfundraising page

AMP24 New Funds Only PROD (DO NOT MODIFY)

countryCode

charityId

UKCharities

Federated Search Internal Testing

route.pathname community

US Donation Upsell audience 

Auto Thanks Feature Audience

Supporter Comments Eligible Funds

International Only

fundId

braze fundraiser group 

Payment Identity Transfers ATO Risk Check (Targeted) - Production

Fundraiser Saved Payment Method Rate Limit Bypass (Production)

leaderboard-partner-id-audience-givepanel

Version 9.2.1 and above

AUD Donation Upsell audience

fundraiserCountryCode is US/EN

Active Fundraiser - Smart Default Cadence

DAF Internal

Vault on success card payment method

Platform is iOS v11.0.0 and above

Desktop users

Person ids

United States (US) users

allow yuno fundraisers for test

Mexico country code

Posters INTL

NPO Profile Opted-In

iOS at or above 12.4.0

non-US recurring donors

Canada Campaign Owner Group

Fundraiser Without Meta Link

Scheduler payment tester gorup

charityCommunityId

Charities allow to be claimed unclaimed (PRD)

Canada (CA) users

UC Tipping v20250115 International

pymk_production_xplr_fe_team

Android at or above 12.2.0

Profile photo entry point audience

smart goals (fundraiser/manage) on test01

Activity Tracking v1 Beta Testing

start gfm intl allowed locales

Platform is iOS v11.2.0 and above

NPO upsell education category

unclaimed charities

prod_ach_audience

AI Chatbot Audience

amp13 only new funds (prod) (anyword auto)

UC Flow Enabled (Prod)

Payment Identity Beneficiary Verification - Production

shared notification bell audience

Custom users

ach frontend audience

Android v11.0.0 and above

Users Receiving Payments Paused Notifications

smart goals test01

Manage Coach - US English Organizers Only + new funds only

Team EGG - IP Address list

NPO recommendations prod

Fundraiser Without Instagram Deep Link

Native 11.4.0 and above

UC Tipping v20250107

Users Receiving Braze KYC Validation Failed

Native 11.3.0 and above

ai_title_page

anyword

openai

control

manual_entry

userEmail

template_id

userId

fundUrl

isCharityCo

email

appVersion

shouldBucketIntoExperiment

partnerId

donationCadence

isActiveFundraiser

isPartner

isMobile

npoProfileOptIn

fundIsLinkedWithMeta

hasSessionDonation

categoryGroup

isCampaignOwner

fundHasInstagramDeepLink

Native 11.4.0 and higher

New funds eligible - Video Sharing (PROD)

GB Donation Upsell audience 

Auto Thanks V3 Rollout Audience

Thank you V3 testing whitelist

isRecurringFriendly

Is Recurring Friendly

Excluded funds - Video Sharing

NPO upsell animals category

NPO upsell disaster relief category

Logged In Users

CH Donation Upsell audience

Android v10.6.0 and above

NPO upsell essential needs category

NPO upsell medical category

userCurrencyCode

Localized Currency

NPO upsell cancer category

v11.5.0 and above

testAudience

pathname

Survicate

appVersion is at or above 12.8.0

Non-charity fund

isChallengeFundraiser

challenge-fundraisers

Payment Identity Launch Verification - Production

New funds eligible - Posters v2

CAD Donation Upsell Audience

Braze Email Tester

NPO Profile Opted-Out

iOS App Version

hasKnownDonors

PYMK has donors

iOS v12.3.0 and above

Help us fight for reasonable development in Live Oak

Still $1,125 to go. Help us build momentum.