The Santa Cruz County Sustainability Update comprises numerous changes to both the County General Plan (GP) and the County Codes. According to the County, “The goal of this update is to implement new policies and code regulations that support more sustainable communities in Santa Cruz County.”

While the Update includes many aspirational goals and some good improvements to the GP and codes, there are at least two major deficiencies. First, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) mitigations for the increased traffic that will result from infill development were insufficient, and second, the County failed—even after 10 years of planning—to do the important work of rezoning and redesignating parcels along transportation corridors for higher density or for the newly created zoning designations. Instead, the County will rely on ad hoc spot-rezoning on a project-by-project basis. The failure to do this rezoning work is viewed by many as an abdication of the real planning work responsibility of the project. The only significant rezoning was along Portola Avenue in Pleasure Point, with none along the Soquel Corridor. The Soquel Corridor and upper 17th Avenue were the primary identified locations for enhanced infill development in the Sustainable Corridors study that provided the basis of this project. Yet these areas were not included for rezoning in the final Update documents.

After all the work to re-design Live Oak and Soquel to try to create a more walkable and livable community, only a few lots (seen in yellow) have actually been slated for re-zoning. 

The Sierra Club submitted formal comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the County of Santa Cruz’s Sustainability Update to the County General Plan and County Codes. The comments revolved around three topics:

• Conservation, with regard to species and habitat protection

Concerning the Update’s delisting of specific County protections for Species of Special Concern to the County, including the monarch butterfly, the County response in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) addressed this concern, stating that the delisting was due to an oversight. The protections were restored to the General Plan.

• Transportation, with regard to VMT impact mitigations

Concerning the VMT issue, the County made no changes and argued that the documents as proposed addressed the concerns raised.

• Land Use and Planning

As for the specific rezoning concerns (the lack of rezoning along corridors), the FEIR claimed that this was not an EIR issue and avoided discussion entirely.

The Sustainability Update will now go through two rounds of Planning Commission Hearings, and then route to the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission hearings will be on Wednesdays August 24 and September 14. It will then be heard by the Supervisors at a later date. There is an opportunity to make a case for changes at all of these hearings. Please review the County response to the Sierra Club DEIR comments here: County EIR response to Club comments