An Application of Land Use Policies and Spatial Modeling

Chandra Slaven, MCRP



Abstract

        This research project proposed to establish a theoretical and practical basis for a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Pilot Program for the Visalia-Tulare Greenbelt Study Area, utilizing land use policies and spatial modeling. The formulated model has resulted in a final composite map, titled "Prime Farmland Index." The index/map identified the key parcels for the PDR Program, based on recommended indicators for agricultural conservation (e.g., water, soil, land use, economic). If successful, this pilot program for the study area will constitute a cautious step toward creating a PDR Program for Tulare County as a whole.


Introduction - Agricultural Conversion in the Central Valley

        The Central Valley has been dominated by agricultural production for decades. However, within the last several decades, the Valley has faced increasingly urban development pressures that are continuing to alter the landscape. These changes have affected agriculture tremendously and have led to a significant loss of productive farmland. As a result, many concerned citizens are raising the issue of agricultural conservation for the Valley.
        This document emphasizes the conversion process in relation to agricultural conservation. The actual process is complicated and varied. Conversion pressure passes through several stages with each step making the subsequent one more difficult to forestall. The first step occurs when a public agency, for example Caltrans, allocates money for transportation and other infrastructure improvements that ultimately improve access to certain areas. Once access is attained, residential and commercial developments occur, typically in the form of low-density sprawl. As encroachment continues, farmers become wary of continuing their farming operations. The actual “disinvestment in farms” has been termed as the “impermanence syndrome” (American Farmland Trust, Alternatives… 4). This leads many landowners to become “speculators” of their own land by staying on the land until the right price comes along.



Tulare County

        Tulare County lies in the southern part of the Central Valley, nestled between the Sierra Nevadas on the east and the coastal foothills on the west. Tulare County's 1999 agricultural production totaled $3,078,186,000; which represents an increase of 5% over 1998 (Tulare County Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer, 1). Within Tulare County lie two distinct cities that together provide urban hubs for the County. The City of Tulare, incorporated in 1888, is a full-service community of 40,000. The City of Visalia (the County seat), approximately five miles to the north, is the oldest city in the Central Valley between Los Angeles and Stockton.
        The land between the cities of Visalia and Tulare, in unincorporated Tulare County, is suffering from development pressures. Each city, eager to enrich its respective tax bases, is allowing development on an unprecedented scale. No matter what direction development falls, some of the nation's prime soil will be developed. Thus, as each city further annexes land for development, another acre of prime agricultural land is consumed. Because of this phenomena, many residents have begun asking what measures should be taken to curb this development pattern.



Introduction - The Formation of the Visalia-Tulare Greenbelt Study Area

        The idea of a "greenbelt" between the two cities has been tossed back and forth for the last several decades. Throughout time, the issue has been consistently put to rest by the mention of the "gentlemen's agreement." There has been an "understanding" between the cities of Visalia and Tulare that each would respectfully stay within their sphere of influence, providing assurance that each city would keep their own sense of community identity. The current situation, however, is that the de facto greenbelt is shrinking. The southern most extension of the City of Visalia is now only two miles from the northern limits of the City of Tulare.
        An advisory committee was developed in hopes of finding a "solution" to the eventual union of the two cities.  The membership of the Greenbelt Advisory Committee (GAC) consisted of primarily of the staff from the two cities and Tulare County (for consistency purposes, there were several representatives from each jurisdiction). Others on the GAC included: a Building Industry Association (BIA) representative, a Farm Bureau representative, several consultants, several local landowners within the study area, and one committee appointed public member at-large (Greenbelt Advisory Committee Meeting, 9-30-99). Additionally, a target location for the Study Area was established through the process. Parts of the study area are located within the city limits of both cities. The primary boundaries of the Study Area are: Akers Road (Road 100) and Highway 99 on the west; Caldwell Avenue (Ave. 280) on the north; Lovers Lane (Road 140) on the east; and Cartmill Avenue (Ave. 248) on the south. It is important to point out the following facts about the study area in Figure 1:

Total Study Area:          1,734,371 acres or 32 +/- square miles
Total # of Parcels:         941
Total # of Residential Parcels:  230+/-
Williamson Act Contract Parcels:  121
Sphere of Influence:     Visalia 905 +/- acres (26.3%)
Sphere of Influence:     Tulare 604+/- acres (18.6%)
Sphere of Influence:     Outside SOI 1,545 +/- acres (55.1%)
Planned Land Use:       Urban 135+/- acres (3.9%)
Planned Land Use:       Agricultural 3, 305 +/- acres  (96.1%)
(Source:  Greenbelt Advisory Committee Meeting, 1-27-00)


                   Figure 1: The Visalia -Tulare Greenbelt Study Area



Policy Recommendations for the Visalia-Tulare Study Area

It is the recommendation of the author that the local jurisdictions should actively promote and implement direct land conservation through a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Program. Additionally, actively encourage landowners to participate in the Program.


A PDR Program should be part of a Comprehensive Growth Management Program.


A PDR Program should be based on accurate information.

        Although a Purchase of Development Rights Program is recommended, there is no sense in promoting a PDR Program by itself. It will succeed only as part of a broader effort to create an effective growth management plan for Tulare County, one that addresses on a county (or even regional) basis the key issues - growth versus preservation, tradeoffs, geographical limits of urban development, land use efficiencies, and local government finance.


Purchase of Development Rights Discussion

        “Purchase of Development Rights” is the voluntary sale of the right to develop a piece of property by the owner to a government agency or land trust. The development rights are separated from the bundle of rights that go with the land (e.g. right to pass the land to heirs) and are independently purchased. The seller gives up the right to develop the land but otherwise retains the rights and responsibilities that go with ownership. The sale is evidenced by a conservation easement by which the affected land is restricted in perpetuity to farming or open space uses. Besides obtaining the sale price, the seller may be entitled to property and estate tax reductions (Schiffman, p. 112). The actual “development right” is one of several rights to which a fee-simple property owner is generally entitled.
        For the past quarter century, conservation in addition to environmental objectives in the United States have been largely achieved by either imposing regulations or through generally limited government purchase of private land. Nonetheless, these policies have ultimately failed to resolve conflicts over important land use problems such as farmland preservation. Relying solely on the voluntary participation of thousands of private landowners has proved faulty. Hence, planning is demanding new approaches to land conservation that can address the concerns of private landowners.
        The easement acquisition or purchase of development rights approach provides an innovative, voluntary opportunity for appropriate local agencies to work with landowners by offering them compensation to protect the most productive farmland - farmland that is critical to both the agricultural economic base of our rural and suburban communities. Moreover, an agricultural conservation easement is simply the legal contract attached to the deed to the property ensuring that the agreement not to subdivide is binding on current and all future landowners. According to the American Farmland Trust (AFT) "landowners are paid a fair price for development value foregone, (http://www.farmland.org.
        Traditional conservation policy has been a contentious issue for many farmers, who are typically strong believers of individual freedom and private property rights. Forms of permanent agricultural zoning (i.e. agricultural greenbelts) or other land use regulations have typically proved to be a divisive issue between planners/policymakers and farmers. Hence, their support for conservation policies is critical because their land is at stake in the increasing competition with urban sprawl. Furthermore, as pressure from sprawl has increased, so has the disagreement over how to balance economic use with conversion of agricultural land and the increasing demands being placed on private landowners to continue agricultural production.



Funding Scope for the Purchase of Development Rights Pilot Program

        Typically, funding is sought to enable programs to buy development rights for up to 2,000 acres per year. However, the actual number is dependent of the value of the land locally as well as the ability of the private land trust to ascertain funding from both state and federal funding sources. Any funds not expended in any given funding cycle should roll over to the next cycle and should be available for use in addition to any new funding sources. This will allow program flexibility and allow the Advisory Board to target the highest quality properties. Purchase of development rights on such properties may require funding from one or more cycles.



GIS Model Methodology and Criteria for the Purchase of Development Rights Pilot Program

        To attempt to conserve agriculture and find appropriate locations for development that do not conflict with agricultural activities, the local planners must first identify where potential conflicts exist and the extent of those conflicts. Without a clear understanding of this information, it is difficult to make appropriate land use decisions.
        The Prime Farmland Model was developed for the Visalia-Tulare Greenbelt Study Area, to stimulate discussion on long-range planning and agricultural conservation in Tulare County. Three scenarios were run, each illustrating different rankings of economic, land use, and water potential. Essentially, each model visually displayed the “scores” of each of these agricultural indicators. The results spatially identified parcels of agricultural land with a higher potential for funding under a Purchase of Development Rights Program.
        The results are presented in the following section and will be presented to the appropriate organizations, such as the Tulare County Resource Management Agency and the Visalia bureau office of the American Farmland Trust.
        The model was developed in ArcView, the Geographic Information System (GIS) used by most agencies in California. The actual model was designed and run using ArcView's Spatial Analyst (ModelBuilder). The Prime Farmland model was designed for local planning purposes and is simple to utilize. Additionally, it lays the foundation for a more comprehensive model to be used on a larger scale such as the entire Central Valley. With more data incorporated within the general indicators, there is great potential for the model to encompass larger geographic areas.
        The data within the model is raster format. The raster method (i.e. cells in a grid), as opposed to vector format (i.e. points, lines, and polygons), is a more precise measure of areal extent, but requires more processing and post-processing to remove duplicate lines (i.e. duplicate parcel data) and to calculate the amount of each category in each area. There is no firm rule for choosing an appropriate cell size for vector data conversion. However, one consideration is the scale and purpose of the model. The exact shape of a city park is more important at the scale of a neighborhood than at the scale of a county. Another consideration is the cell size of other project data used. A third consideration is a disk space and processing time (Esri, 124). Currently, the model operates on datasets in 25-foot grid cells, which allows the user to accurately represent agricultural data and issues. The small grid cell lends to finer scaled analysis, which accounts for better results. It is important to point out that if the model is designed to be used on a much larger scale, the grid cell size might have to be increased to keep processing times reasonable.
        As mentioned above, there are three primarily indicators of prime farmland within the Study Area. The user can easily manipulate the scale values (1 – 5) of each data input within each indicator and then can further manipulate the results by changing the percentages of influence within the overall weighted overlay of the indicators. The user can easily replace old datasets with newer ones, change assumptions or model parameters, and consider alternative scenarios in which input factors are prioritized differently. Hence, the simplicity of the model in its final format.
        Ultimately, it is the hope of the author that the Prime Farmland Model will allow a more sophisticated assessment of information, supplanting more simplistic procedures. This desktop-based GIS model will allow local planners to generate land-use scenarios that will identify where development should occur in order to best conserve valuable agricultural resources. Both county and city planners will be able to utilize this tool to quickly avail themselves of current information. Within the model, information can be combined in a multitude of ways and in a short time frame, allowing the planner and the public to evaluate a larger number of potential alternatives to planning problems.

Required Data for the Prime Farmland Model:

All shapefiles and their associated databases were provided by the Tulare County Resource Management Agency, GIS Division, located in Visalia, California.


Explanation of Priority Ranking System for the Prime Farmland Model

        A “Priority Ranking System” (PRS) is used to evaluate the characteristics of properties offered for purchase of development rights (PDR). In the event that the number of properties voluntarily offered to the PDR program in any given year exceeds the funding available for the purchase of development rights on such properties, the priority of acquisition shall be determined by the relative ranking of a property.
 The (PRS) consists of a number of factors and criteria descriptive of the characteristics of property. Each criterion is assigned a numerical weight signifying its importance relative to all other criteria in that area. To determine the total points assigned to a property, the values for all criteria within each indicator are added in an overall weighted overlay. Once the score of each property has been calculated, all properties can be ranked. Those properties ranked the highest (i.e. on a scale of 5 points) may be given PDR acquisition priority. Should a minimum threshold be established, properties scoring below the minimum threshold may be excluded from purchase of development rights. It is important to note that the number of points accrued by a property, based on its characteristics as defined by the PRS, is not be used in the actual determination of the value of development rights or the amount of any offer to purchase such rights (The PDR Design Subcommittee of the Open Space Advisory Committee, 4).
        Data collection and production activities were confined to the criteria list that follows. Some of the data collected were not used because the criteria was dropped, and some of the criteria did not lend themselves to data gathering prior to program implementation. The Priority Ranking System (1–5 points scale value, with 5 being the best) will credit an applicant with points based on three indicators:

Please refer to appendix for a breakdown of the indicators and their associated data criteria/weighting.


GIS Maps

        The following maps are intended to facilitate an understanding of the Prime Farmland Composite within the Visalia-Tulare Study Area, and the Priority Ranking System (PRS) criteria set forth. It is important to point out that the data from which these maps are created are subject to change.
        Approximately twenty-six maps were produced in support of the Prime Farmland Model. The maps can be broadly divided into two categories, resource and model maps. The resource maps show the data in its original form, regardless of the Board’s ranking system. The resource maps include urban growth limits, parcels, zoning, and crop type locations. The maps were used in the model development in order to understand the extent and distribution of the Study Area’s agricultural resources, and to begin to think geographically about the planning issues that are facing the Study Area.
        The model maps illustrate the results of the Prime Farmland Model and the criteria rankings set forth previously in this document. It was through these maps that the ranking system for each parcel was evaluated. The model maps do not include the effects of unsupported data and the eligibility criteria, both of which may change the modeling results. In order to standardize their presentation, the maps were created based upon a similar template, with title, legend, and notes in the same location for every map. The model maps shared the same color ramping display so that the higher scoring parcels on each map are always identified with the same colors. The standardization of coloring was used in order to facilitate map interpretation.

Example of Resulting Map for Scenario 3 -  Prime Farmland Composite with Water Potential Influence:
 


 



Results of the GIS Spatial Model for the Visalia-Tulare Study Area

        Once the criterion was identified and the data sets collected, the results for the criteria were modeled using GIS. As evident in the last chapter, it is now possible to theoretically predict how the program might develop if the development rights for the top parcels can be purchased each year. Each data layer within each indicator was assigned a weight between one and five, with five being the highest or best. This method essentially allowed for the evaluation of the importance of each component relative to the others. The value of each parcel (within each indicator) was then identified within the “Priority Ranking System (PRS).” The combined values for each indicator were then used as the final composite for each parcel. The final prime farmland composite resulted in three different scenarios with either an economic, land use proximity, or water potential influence. "Influence" translates into a greater emphasis placed on those elements that are consistent with the economic, land use, and water realms.

Indicator Composite Results:
 

Prime Farmland Scenario with Indicator Influence Results:
          After examination of all three scenarios, it is evident that under the Land Use Proximity Scenario, more parcels within the Study Area would qualify for a Purchase of Development Rights Program with available funds. Thus, it would be recommended that the Advisory Board place greater influence on land use proximity indicators when designing the spatial model. In other words, this scenario justifies more parcels being placed in conservation easements within the Study Area.


Conclusion

As Tulare County’s population continues to increase, so will its need for urban land. Assuming future urban expansion rates of between 1.5 percent and 2.2 percent per year (the growth rate indicated by the Farmland Monitoring and Mapping Program data for California), the need for developable land will only increase for the County (Medvitz, Sokolow, and Lemp, 26). This is further evident from the large amount of land that is currently being developed and the affordability of agricultural land on the boundary of both Visalia and Tulare. As the future unfolds, we cannot count on agriculture to adapt to a declining land base as it did earlier in the century. The increased preservation of agricultural land cannot ensure a healthy, viable agricultural economy. Nonetheless, preserving agricultural land more effectively then we now do is both necessary and possible.



Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my masters thesis committee, Richard Lee, Ph.D., Walt Bremer, Ph.D., and Paul Wack; without whom this paper would not have been a success. Additionally, I extend my gratitude to the staff at the Tulare County Resource Management Agency and various representatives of the American Farmland Trust.



Appendix A

Explanation of Indicators for the Prime Farmland Model for the Visalia-Tulare Study Area:

Targeted Value Crops for California Indicator (Crop Types Shapefile)

Higher Development Potential Indicator (Assessor Parcel Shapefile) Classification of Improvement Value by Prime Agricultural Acre Indicator (Assessor Parcel Shapefile)


Irrigated Land Indicator (Irrigation Shapefile)
? Irrigated land – 4 points
? Restricted (urbanized) land – 1 point

Proximity to Preserved Property Indicator (Assessor Parcel Shapefile)
? 0.0 – 0.05 miles – 5 points
? 0.05 – 0.1 miles – 4 points
? 0.1 – 0.15 miles – 2 points
? Restricted land – 1 point

Proximity to Farmland Security Zone Parcels Indicator (Farmland Security Zones Shapefile)
? 0.0 – 0.05 miles – 5 points
? 0.05 – 0.1 miles – 4 points
? 0.1 – 0.15 miles – 2 points
? Restricted land – 1 point

AE-20 and AE-40 Zoning Indicator (County Zoning Shapefile)
? AE-40 – 4 points
? AE-20 – 2 points
? Restricted land – 1 point

Water Table Classified by Depth Indicator  - measurements taken in both Spring and Fall of 1998 (Water Table Shapefiles that had been combined into one shapefile)
? 40 – 63 feet – 5 points
? 64- 86 feet – 4 points
? 87 – 110 feet – 3 points
? Restricted land – 1 point

Proximity to Delivered Water Indicator (Rivers/Creeks Shapefile)
? 0.0 – 0.05 miles – 3 points
? 0.05 – 0.1 miles – 2 points
? 0.1 – 0.15 miles – 1 point
? Restricted land – 1 point

Proximity to Well Locations Indicator (Well Locations Shapefile)
? 0.0 – 0.05 miles – 5 points
? 0.05 – 0.1 miles – 3 points
? 0.1 – 0.15 miles – 2 points
? Restricted land – 1 point



COMPOSITE RESULTS UTILIZING THREE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS

Prime Farmland Composite with Economic Influence:
? Economic Composite – 55% of influence
? Land Use Proximity Composite – 15% of influence
? Water Potential Composite – 30% of influence

Prime Farmland Composite with Water Potential Influence:
? Water Potential Composite – 80% of influence
? Economic Composite – 10% of influence
? Land Use Proximity Composite – 10% of influence

Prime Farmland Composite with Land Use Proximity Influence:
? Land Use Proximity Composite – 45% of influence
? Water Potential Composite – 30% of influence
? Economic Composite – 25% of influence



Appendix B

AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST (AFT) PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA:

AFT receives many inquires from landowners and their advisors each year, AFT selects projects based on criteria that include the following:
 



References

American Farmland Trust. "Innovative Collaboration Protects Family Farm: State
Farmland Protection Money Keeps Riverfront View shed Intact." 22 July 1999. <http://www.farmland.org(14 April 2000).
American Farmland Trust. “Executive Summary of Smart Growth versus Sprawl in
California: How State and Local Public Policies Perpetuate Inefficient Development in the World's Most Productive Agricultural Valley." May 1999. <http://www.farmland.org (14 April 2000).
American Farmland Trust. "Testimony on the Conservation Reinvestment Act of 1999
(H.R. 701) and the Resources 2000 Act (H.R. 798) before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources." 10 March 1999. <http://www.farmland.org (14 April 2000).
American Farmland Trust. "Estate Tax Reform for Agriculture." 25 February 1997.
<http://www.farmland.org (14 April 2000).
American Farmland Trust. "Farmer Ensures that Land Blooms for Future Generations:
Collaboration Key to Protecting Merced County Farmland." 28 February 2000. <http://www.farmland.org> (14 April 2000).
American Farmland Trust. "Testimony for the Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works Hearing on Loss of Open Space and Environmental Quality."
<http://www.farmland.org(14 April 2000).
American Farmland Trust. "FACT Sheets." <http://www.farmland.org> (14 April 2000).
American Farmland Trust. "Farming of the Edge." American Farmland Trust. Spring-
Summer 1997 (1997): 9-16.
American Farmland Trust. "Tax Reform for Conservation of Farmland and Open Space."
25 July 2000. <http://www.farmland.org (2 Aug. 2000).
American Farmland Trust. "Alternatives for Future Urban Growth in California's Central
Valley: The Bottom Line for Agriculture and Taxpayers." October 1995.
Alterman, Rachelle. “The Challenge of Farmland Preservation: Lessons from a Six-
Nation Comparison.” Journal of the American Planning Association 63 (1997): 220-243.
Assembly Member Johnston. "Agricultural Preserves: Public Use - S.B. No. 985." 10
October 1999. <http://info.sen.ca.gov> (12 May 2000).
Bradshaw, Ted K., Muller, Brian. “Impacts of Rapid Urban Growth on Farmland
Conversion: Application of New Regional Land Use Policy Models and Geographic Information Systems.” Rural Sociology 63 (1998): 1-25.
California Farm Bureau Federation. "The Farmland And Security Zone: A Farm Bureau
Primer for Counties." 1999. <http://www.cfbf.com/memo.htm 1 Aug 2000.
California Farm Bureau Federation. "Facts and Statistics about California Agriculture."
<http://www.cfbf.com.agfacts.htm> 1 Aug 2000.
City of Tulare. "City of Tulare General Plan: Land Use and Circulation 2000." Tulare,
1992.
City of Tulare. "City of Tulare General Plan: Land Use and Circulation 2000." Tulare,
1992.
City of Visalia. "The Visalia General Plan's Land Use Element Policy Summary."
Visalia, 1996.
City of Visalia, "Land Use Element to the General Plan, September 1991, Revised June
1996." Visalia, 1996.
City of Visalia. "The Visalia General Plan's Land Use Element Policy Summary."
Visalia, 1996.
City of Visalia. "Visalia Mooney Boulevard Redevelopment Project." Visalia, 1987.
City of Visalia, “Experience Visalia: Community Profile and Demographic Information.”
Visalia, 2000.
City of Visalia and City of Tulare Planning Departments, Coring, Phyllis, Lindsey, Kirk.
"Greenbelt Study." Visalia/Tulare, 1996.
Coring, Phyllis, Brandt, Steve. "Urban Development Boundary Status Report - Draft for
Public Circulation." Visalia, 2000.
County of Tulare Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer. "General Information Packet 2000,
Pesticide Use." Visalia, 2000.
County of Tulare Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer. "Annual Tulare County Crop and
Livestock Report for 1999." Visalia, 2000.
County of Tulare Resource Management Agency. "Rural Valley Lands Plan (Update)."
Visalia, 1994.
County of Tulare Resource Management Agency. "County of Tulare Comprehensive
Policy Plan." Visalia, revised.
County of Tulare Resource Management Agency. "An Area General Plan for Tulare
County - California, Report II: Proposals and Tools for Achievement." Visalia, 1964.
County of Tulare Resource Management Agency. "Urban Boundaries Element." Visalia,
1974.
County of Tulare Resource Management Agency. "Urban Boundaries." Visalia, 1988.
County of Tulare Resource Management Agency. "Chapter Nine - Right to Farm."
(County of Tulare Zoning Ordinance). Visalia, 1990.
County of Tulare Resource Management Agency. "Environmental Resources
Management - Open Space, Recreation, Conservation Element." Visalia, 1972.
County of Tulare Resource Management Agency. "Corridor Concepts: A Plan for the
Development of Mooney Boulevard." Visalia, 1972.
County of Tulare Resource Management Agency. "LEGACI Grants Selection Criteria."
Visalia, 1998.
County of Tulare Resource Management Agency. "Agreement Interagency
Participation." Visalia, 1998.
Daniels, Tom, Deborah, Bowers. Holding Our Ground: Protecting America's Farms and
Farmland. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1997.
EASI Quick Reports and Analysis. "Owner and Renter Occupied Households Report and
Analysis."4 May 1990. <http://www.easidemographics.com/cgi_bin/free_reports.  (1 Aug. 2000).
Entin, Kenneth. "Agriculture: The Future of the San Joaquin Valley Economy".
Sacramento: The New Valley Connexions Insight, Spring 2000.
Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. ModelBuilder: For ArcView Spatial
Analyst. Redlands: Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 2000.
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, California Department of Conservation.
"Farmland Conversion Report: 1996-98." Sacramento, 2000.
Gustanski, Julie Ann, Squires, Roderick H. Protecting the Land: Conservation Easements
Past, Present, and Future. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 2000.
Hanson, Marc. "A Smart Growth Document: An Information Handbook For Planners and
Local Decision-Makers." Sacramento: The Great Valley Center's LEGACI Grant
Program, 1999.
Jelineck, Lawrence J. Harvest Empire: A History of California Agriculture. San
Francisco: Boyd & Fraser Publishing Company, 1979.
Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, “Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District
Groundwater Management Plan.” Visalia, July 1995.
Land Systems Group and California Geographic Information Association for New Valley
Connexions, “Mapping the Future: Developing Regional GIS Standards in the San Joaquin Valley.” Monterey, November 2000.
Land Use Associates, VRPA Technologies, Stanley R. Hoffman Associates. "Proposal
for: Tulare/Visalia Greenbelt Study." Fresno, 1999.
Lindhult, Mark S., et.al. “Using Geographic Information Systems to Assess Conflicts
Between Agriculture and Development.” Landscape and Urban Planning 16 (1988): 333-343.
Miller, William R. Planning Methods for GIS Environmental Design. Washington D.C.:
Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 1995.
Munroe, Dr. Tapan. "California Economic Outlook and Key Issues: 1999 and Beyond."
San Francisco: Pacific Gas & Electric Company, 1998.
Nelson, Arthur C., “Preserving Prime Farmland in the Face of Urbanization: Lessons
from Oregon.” Journal of the American Planning Association 58 (1992): 467-488.
Office of Governor's Planning and Research. "Putting Action into the Open Space
Element." November 1999. <http://www.ceres.ca.gov(14, November 1999).
Office of Governor's Planning and Research. "State of California General Plan
Guidelines." Sacramento, 1998.
PDR Design Subcommittee of the Open Space Advisory Committee. Proposed Purchase
 of Development Rights Program. Loudoun County, VA, 2000.
San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building. "Agriculture and Open
Space Element." San Luis Obispo, 1998.
Schiffman, Irving. Alternative Techniques for Managing Growth. Berkeley: Institute of
Governmental Studies Press, 1999 (second edition).
Sisson, Charles Adair. Tax Burdens in American Agriculture: An Intersectoral
Comparison. Ames: The Iowa State University Press, 1982.
Snelling, Eric B. "The Visalia - Tulare Greenbelt: A Case Study and Recommendations
for Protection." San Luis Obispo: City and Regional Planning Department, California Polytechnic State University, 1993.
Sokolow, Alvin D., Medvitz, Albert G., and Lemp, Cathy. California Farmland and
Urban Pressures: Statewide and Regional Perspectives. Davis, California, 1999.
Stokes, Samuel N., Watson, Elizabeth A., Mastran, Shelley S. Saving American's
Countryside: A Guide to Rural Conservation. Baltimore: The John Hopkins
University Press, 1997 (second edition).
 Thompson, Dick. "Asphalt Jungle." TIME. April - May 2000, 50-1.
Warman, Tim. "1996 Farm Bill: A Triumph for Conservation." American Farmland Trust
Spring 1996 (1996): 6-8.
Wasserman, Jim. "Growth now the top topic." Fresno Bee 14 May 2000: 1.
Vivian, Georgiena, Member of Project Consultant Team. "Final Meeting Notes from
September 30th, 1999 - January 27th, 2000." Visalia, 2000.



Author Information

Chandra Slaven, MCRP
California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, California
Systems Specialist, Graphics and Mapping
County of San Luis Obispo Planning and Building Department
2234 Santa Ynez Ave.
San Luis Obispo CA 93405
(home) 805-544-2238
(work) 805-781-4171
(email) ckslaven@aol.com