The corridor plan in Santa Cruz zoned certain areas, depending on the size of the lot, for the potential for a developer building a four and possibly a five-story building (that does not count the potential height of an air or heat unit or a roof balcony.) Many know that type of density would impede upon the nearby neighborhoods and add too much traffic to Santa Cruz.

There is quite a bit of housing approved to go into the downtown area.  There will be more tourist filling the new hotels which are being built which will add traffic. UCSC wants to add 10,000 more students in the future years. With the other building going on it is especially clear more traffic will come to Santa Cruz. Why add more?
There has been talk of the Santa Cruz City Council revisiting the corridor plan. The City Council has a lot of influence on what will be approved to be built. It would be wise to have as many city council members on the city council who will support what the community wants. Who you vote for in this election this week matters.
So far one candidate in this election has shared information on her view of the corridor plan. This information was shared by Kayla Kumar to a group of Santa Cruz residents:

"I'll first set the table by saying the Corridors Plan is exactly the kind of anti-community project that animates my run for office and I have much to say. I’ll pull out four main points for you all with the hopes that if we need to dive deeper still, you’ll reach out to me.

One of the most crucial flaws with the Corridors Plan is that the process excluded neighborhood input-- specifically East Side representation-- and was largely designed by developer interests. It truly had no meaningful way to incorporate community vision and values into its design. That right there is enough to ditch it. The then progressive majority made a recommendation that the process go back to the drawing board and work with groups like Save Santa Cruz to better align the General Plan and Zoning Ordinances. If this condition was met in good faith by the City and this was confirmed by Save Santa Cruz and other Eastside groups, I would consider that progress on this point. 
Another fundamental flaw, in my view, is that the plan does not center an equitable distribution of development in the City, but rather asks the Eastside to bear the brunt of the impacts of development. 
What makes this even worse is that there was little to no plan on how to mitigate these impacts of development. I heard several examples of concern from the community including traffic, parking, quality of life, historic preservation, and aesthetic. I would work hard for a process that took these impacts seriously. 
But even if these impacts were to be given proper mitigation planning, the Corridor plan itself invites a disproportionate amount of market-rate development and no substantive way of creating real affordable housing, which will surely gentrify the area. This has generated what I believe is a very reasonable push-back from Eastside neighbors who do not want to be displaced from their homes and do not want to see the destruction of their neighborhoods’ quality of life and sense of community. I want livable clean green housing and neighborhoods for all in Santa Cruz. The Corridors Plan does not further that goal.

When taken together, I hope I've made clear why I remain firmly against the Corridors Plan that was presented to the community. So much so, I will absolutely not vote to restart the plan without a substantive and verified plan to meet the needs expressed by Eastside Santa Cruz. "n solidarity,

Kayla