LandWatch State of Monterey County Report 1998
Louis R. Calcagno Response to the State of Monterey County Report

From: Louis R. Calcagno
To: Michael D. DeLapa, President, LandWatch
Date: 5/24/98

1. Do you agree with LandWatch's assessment of planning issues inMonterey County? If not, why?

Ans. In general the assessments of LandWatch are right on target. It isobvious that we are moving without a road map for long range planning. Weare not thinking about the future of our county, the future of our state or ourcountry as this county affects it. Our agriculture is vital to the whole country.We need a long range plan -- 20 to 30 years.

2. Do you agree with LandWatch's recommendations for dealing with theseissues? If not, what alternatives do you recommend?

Ans. In general I agree with the principal and surely would work towardsLandWatch's recommendation. It is obvious that we must have city and countygovernment working together for the recommendations to take place. I see thatas being very difficult. County would probably be the easiest one to get undercontrol because the elected officials are elected by county voters. However citygovernment and LAFCO would be more difficult.

3. What is your vision for growth in Monterey County? What growth rates inresidential and commercial/industrial do you favor for the next 20 years?Where do you feel growth is best accommodated? What policies would yourecommend that would provide affordable housing, limit conversion ofproductive agricultural land, and be consistent with environmental andinfrastracture constraints?

Ans. County growth, when possible, should be limited to incorporated areasand we should be striving for maximum infill development of vacant city orunused land. However, there are situations in which non productive landwithin the county has advantages of productive land surrounding the city. Thismust be taken into consideration for the benefit of preserving agriculture land.

We should concentrate on commercial developments and public facilitiesthat minimize the use of farm land and water. We should also protect thevalley's most important farm land from urbanization.

First Salinas will take the largest amount of growth. Growth of directionshould be towards the East to the foothills and the northeast which wouldinclude Rancho San Juan. That is the most marginable productive groundsurrounding Salinas. There should be no development West of Highway 101 orWest of Davis Road to protect our productive agriculture land. The Northeastgrowth pattern for Salinas should be planned for the next 50 years and weshould be furnishing growth for our own needs -- not become a bedroom community. The Salinas Valley town's should basically infill first and thenmove towards the least non-productive agriculture ground; however, if there isnot planned growth, the demand for bedroom communities will continue andwe will lose our agriculture ground. It must be controlled growth. If it is notcontrolled, the center growth program will create a bigger circle which willinvolve taking agriculture ground.

Affordable housing such as Ranch Chular will always be needed. It mustfit into our general growth pattern. It should be located in cities, where properservices and infrastructure can be provided. We must preserve our agricultureland at all costs -- it is the backbone of our county and our quality of life. TheMonterey Peninsula must provide its own affordable housing for the projects itdevelops. It cannot continuously transfer its density to affordable housing tothe Salinas Valley. It creates traffic problems and we are covering productiveagriculture ground. The Fort Ord site must include affordable housing.

Louis R. Calcagno
5/24/98 [Back to State of Monterey County Responses]