Figure 1: The Visalia -Tulare Greenbelt Study Area
Chandra Slaven, MCRP
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.
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 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.
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
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.
“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.
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.
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:
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:
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:
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:
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.
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.
Explanation of Indicators for the Prime Farmland Model for the Visalia-Tulare Study Area:
Targeted Value Crops for California Indicator (Crop Types 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
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
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:
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.
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