**Notable update**
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)
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.
The project proposes a five-story, 57-unit apartment 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 all 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.
The developer is using California’s Builder’s Remedy law to bypass local zoning and development standards. Our concern is not with housing generally, but instead whether Builder’s Remedy law is legally applicable to this project. Without Builder’s Remedy, the developer would still be entitled to build housing on this site (which we support), but would need to comply with the property’s zoning and development standards.
Through public records requests to the County and the State housing agency (HCD), we obtained documents showing that the County had already finished the State’s substantive review of its Housing Element, and that both 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.
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.
As of March 30th, 2026, we have paid approximately $26,800 in legal fees, including filings, discussions, research, letter-writing, and presenting before the Planning Commission and Board. All invoices can be shared upon request.
This GoFundMe is intended to cover:
- attorney fees
- filing and administrative costs associated with the appeal
- potential future legal costs if court review becomes necessary
As with any legal proceeding, there is no guarantee of success. However, we are committed to presenting a careful, evidence-based case focused on the correct application of State housing law.
We appreciate any and all help that you could provide.
=================
17March update:
Hi everyone,
A heartfelt thank you to those who have supported this effort up until now, whether through donations or by sharing this campaign.
On March 17th, residents of Live Oak filed a legal challenge to the 841 Capitola Road development in Santa Cruz County’s Superior Court.
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).
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.
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.
You can find our filing on the Santa Cruz County Superior Court docket, under #26CV00891
I will update the GoFundMe with more information as I get it.
----
16Jan update:
Hi everyone, few updates:
- Our "de novo" Board hearing is scheduled for February 10th (more details to follow)
- Our attorney will be presenting on our behalf, via Zoom, using the evidence we have gathered
- I received a very substantial update from CA HCD over the holiday break which I believe significantly strengthens our case
I'll update this again as we get closer to the de novo hearing
Thank you for your continued support!
----
18Dec update:
Hi everyone - we have an important update.
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.
The Santa Cruz Sentinel did an excellent write-up of the appeal: https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2025/12/11/santa-cruz-county-board-of-supervisors-order-another-review-of-capitola-road-housing-development/
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:
HCD completed its substantive review of the County’s Housing Element on March 15th and confirmed that it had “addressed prior feedback"
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
No further changes were requested or made after March 15th, meaning there were no remaining review steps
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.
Taken together, this evidence raises serious questions about whether the County was actually out of compliance at the time this project was submitted. Builder’s Remedy applies only when a jurisdiction is out of compliance, and the Board will now consider this evidence directly at the upcoming de novo hearing.
Thank you all for your continued support — it truly made this step possible.
----
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:
- 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
- The proposal did not include a health and safety impact study for the many-fold increase in traffic
- 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
- The proposal's parking provision is woefully inadequate and the County has the power to challenge it
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.
I will provide more updates as time goes on.
Thank you for your support so far!