farmland conservation final report - fresno cog...

An Institute for CONSENSUS BUILDINGwww.sri-consulting.org

800.224-7608

Determining the Feasibility for…

Farmland Conservationin Fresno County

Final Report

June 2011

Prepared expressly for...

ITEM V A

Farmland Conservation, Final Report June 2011

Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page i

Table of Contents

1.0 Executive Summary ………….………………………………….….……….. 1

2.0 Farmland Conservation Model Tested ……………………….………….. 3

3.0 A Funding Measure for Farmland Conservation would Fail ……….... 3

4.0 Farmland Conservation should NOT be abandoned ………….…….... 5

5.0 In the long term, owners of prime farmlands will benefit from NOT selling or allowing these properties to be paved over ……….... 5

6.0 Summary Conclusion …………………………….…….……….….……….. 6

Addendum A List of those Interviewed in Phase 1 …….………...….…. 7

Addendum B: Figures and Charts …………………………………...….…. 9

Figure 1 How satisfied are you with the Quality of Life as a resident of Fresno County?

Figure 2 Local Issues of Concern (Core Values)

Figure 3 What percentage of JOBS in Fresno County (are) Directly or Indirectly related to the Agriculture Industry?

Figure 4 Preferences: Farmland Conservation vs. Private Property Rights

Figure 5A Attitudes regarding Farmland Conservation… Farmland Conservation Reduces the Value of these Properties

Figure 5B Attitudes regarding Farmland Conservation… Farmland should be Protected at ALL COSTS

Figure 5C Attitudes regarding Farmland Conservation… To Protect Property Values there MUST be NO Restrictions

Figure 5D Attitudes regarding Farmland Conservation… Farmland Conservation Requires Property Owners to be Made Whole

Figure 6A Aware of ‘Smart Growth’

Figure 6B Approve or Disapprove of ‘Smart Growth’

Figure 7A Arguments For/Against ‘Smart Growth’… There is Too Much Urban Sprawl

Figure 7B Arguments For/Against ‘Smart Growth’… ‘Smart Growth’ Eliminates Unnecessary Loss of Prime Farmland

Figure 7C Arguments For/Against ‘Smart Growth’… ‘Smart Growth’ is the Most Important Tactic for Preserving Farmland

ITEM V A

Farmland Conservation in Fresno County, Final Report June 2011

Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page ii

Figure 7D Arguments For/Against ‘Smart Growth’… Current Development Rates will Remove 70% of Prime Farmland by 2050

Figure 7E Arguments For/Against ‘Smart Growth’… ‘Smart Growth’ is Needed to Slow Growth Inside Spheres of Influence

Figure 7F Arguments For/Against ‘Smart Growth’… At the Present Rate, Rural Residential Development will Consume 55,000 More Acres of Prime Farmland

Figure 8A Arguments For/Against ‘Smart Growth’… Prime Farmland INSIDE Existing Spheres of Influence Must be Protected

Figure 8B Arguments For/Against ‘Smart Growth’… Due to Advancements in Technology, Farmland Conservation is Less Critical

Figure 8C Arguments For/Against ‘Smart Growth’… It is Imperative that NO MORE Prime Farmland is Lost to Development

Figure 8D Arguments For/Against ‘Smart Growth’… By 2040, Fresno County will Lose 20% of its Irrigated Farmland & $700 Million

Figure 8E Arguments For/Against ‘Smart Growth’… Jobs and Housing MUST be Consistent with County’s Agriculture-based Economy

Figure 9 Support for Agricultural Easements

Figure 10A Support Buffer Zones to Protect Prime Farmlands

Figure 10B Approve Buffer Zones Used for: Trails, Parks, Community Gardens, or Open Space

Figure 11 Support/Oppose: BOND

Figure 12 Support/Oppose: Landscape Maintenance Assessment to Maintain Buffer Zone

Figure 13 Exercise is Part of Most Residents’ Lifestyle

Figure 14 Having Access to Parks, Trails & Open Space is Important

Figure 15 Developing & Maintaining Parks and Trails is Desirable

Figure 16A Most Voters are NOT AWARE of San Joaquin Valley Blue Print

Figure 16B Feelings are Mixed regading the San Joaquin Valley Blue Print

Figure 17 There is Significant Support for Model of Farmland Conservation Tested

Figure 18A-B Demographics

Addendum C: Questionnaire with Percentages ……………………..……. 43

ITEM V A

Farmland Conservation, Final Report June 2011

Strategy Research Institute, An Institute for Consensus Building Page 1

Section 1.0

Executive Summary

The present document is the final step in fulfilling a directive that stems from

Measure C, a successful $1.7 billion funding mechanism placed on the November 2006

Fresno County ballot that secured 78% voter support. The directive was to determine

whether or not Farmland Conservation in Fresno County is, indeed, feasible (from

BOTH the practical and political perspectives) at the present point in time; the present

effort was NOT intended, nor designed, to ADVOCATE either “for” or “against”

Farmland Conservation.

The present report is a culmination of a comprehensive, two‐phase research

effortthat took place over a period of more than two years.

Phase 1 was an EXPLORATORY effort in the form of an Opinion

LeadershipStudy, wherein SRI interviewed: (i) INFLUENTIALS throughout the

County’s Agriculture Industry(including Agri‐bus and family farmers),(ii) ELECTED

OFFICIALS and PROFESSIONAL STAFF representing the various government agencies

throughout the County, (iii) OPINION LEADERS in Fresno County’s commercial

segment, and (iv) other individuals who see themselves and the organizations they

represent as being STAKEHOLDERS in the future of Fresno County.1

What grew out of this exploratory effort was a MODEL of Farmland Conservation

based upon the collective wisdom and opinions of INFLUENTIALS who were

interviewed during Phase 1.

Phase 2 was a CONFIRMATORY effort designed to “test” the Model of

Farmland Conservation that grew out of Phase 1; thisphase was centered on a scientific

survey of registered voters throughout Fresno County…the very same subset of the

community who overwhelmingly authorized the continuation of the $1.7 billion

funding mechanism that was authorized through Measure C.2

Each element of the model that grew out of Phase 1 was tested; moreover, this

scientific survey was designed to determine whether or not the Fresno County

1Refer to Addendum ‘A’ for a listing of people who were interviewed during Phase 1 of the present effort.

2The telephone survey was comprised of N=500 completed interviews of registered voters throughout Fresno County. At 95% confidence level, a sample of this magnitude yields asampling error of 3.5 to 4.4%. The survey followed The Scientific Method, to the letter.

ITEM V A



electorate would be willing to support a funding mechanism, if placed on the local

ballot, that would be necessary in order to implementthe model of Farmland

Conservation in Fresno County that grew out of the present effort.

It should be stressed at the outset of the present discussion that this effort was

driven by four (4) underlying assumptions:

First and foremost, PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTSmust be protected and strictly adhered to; yet, any approach to Farmland Conservation MUST also respect and lend itself to the GREATER GOOD.

Any approach to Farmland Conservation MUST take full advantage of the work that has been done, to date; in particular, thework that was brought forward in: A Landscape of Choice: Strategies for Improving Patterns of Community Growth, prepared by The Growth Alternatives Alliance (released in April 1998).

It MUST incorporatekey elements brought forward in a publication entitled: Model Farmland Conservation Program for Fresno County,commissioned by the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley and produced by the American Farmland Trust (released in December 2008).

Finally, whatever model is embraced MUST be consistent with the San Joaquin Valley Blue Print.

The upshot of the present effort to determine whether or not Farmland

Conservation is feasible today, or in the foreseeable future is this:

1. BOTH “Influentials” throughout Fresno County AND the County “electorate”

support the notion of Farmland Conservation; indeed,BOTH subsets of the

community‐at‐large embrace the Farmland Conservation MODEL that grew out of the

exploratory phase of the present effort. However…

2. There is NOT sufficient voter supportfor a funding measure that would be needed in

order to implement the Farmland Conservation MODEL that grew out of this effort.

Thus…

3. Farmland Conservation in Fresno County is NOT FEASIBLE at the present point in time.

This does NOT mean, however, that Farmland Conservation will NEVER be feasible in Fresno County; nothing could be further from reality. After the national, regional, and local economies have recovered (which is inevitable) …it’s highly likely that Farmland Conservation in Fresno County (and throughout the Central Valley) could, indeed, become feasible; in fact, in all likelihood, it will become viable…even necessary.

Section 2.0

ITEM V A



Farmland Conservation Model Tested

The model that was tested has the following four (4) elements.

1. The model for Farmland Conservation is embedded in a concept known as: Smart Growth, which is one of the principles inherent to the San Joaquin Valley Blue Print. Smart Growth is a movement away from conventional housing developments, comprised of relatively low density, detached single-family housing… to designing higher-density, multi-use subdivisions, located near mass transit centers.

2. BUFFER ZONES would be created along those portions of a City’s approved sphere of influence, or urban limit line, that abuts prime farmland. These buffer zones would be a relatively narrow strip of land on which NO residential, commercial, or industrial development would be permitted; however local government would be permitted to develop regional trails and parks inside these strips of land; also, the buffer zones could be used for community gardens, or simply be dedicated to open space.

3. Local voters would be asked to authorize a modest tax to be used to PURCHASE the development rights on thin strips of land that would function as Buffer Zones; or, to purchase the strips of land outright (at fair market value) and deed the land to the respective city which would take ownership of these Buffer Zones. These monies could also be used to develop regional trails and parks, or other uses that benefit local residents (such as community gardens or dedicate the strips of land to permanent open space). In order to be authorized, this tax would require 2/3rds voter support and would only be assessed to property owners who reside in or adjacent to the community which will take ownership of the Buffer Zones.

4. Local property owners would be asked to authorize a Landscape Maintenance District that would generate the funding needed to properly maintain these buffer zones and keep them safe for use by local residents. This funding mechanism would only require simple majority support from property owners whose property will directly benefit from these regional trails, parks, community gardens, and/or open space.

Section 3.0

A Funding Measure for Farmland Conservation would Fail

As the Model unfolded, virtually everyone interviewed in Phase 1 of the present

effort (whether or not they embraced the Model being tested) asked one particular

question:How will the implementation of Farmland Conservation be funded?More

specifically, where will the money come from to purchase the development rights on

these strips of land or to purchase these Buffer Zones (at fair market value) outright?

To date, the only funding mechanisms for Farmland Conservation are: (i) the

Williamson Act and (ii) easements of various forms; clearly, these revenue streams are

ITEM V A



not nearly sufficient to address the fiscal needs inherent to Farmland Conservation. And,

they never will be…even after the economy has recovered.

Thus, other funding streams need to be identified or created in order to move

forward with Farmland Conservation in Fresno County, and beyond.

It was this element alone that ultimately led researchers to the conclusion that Farmland Conservation in Fresno County is not, at the present time, a viable option.

Fresno County voters were asked whether or not prime

farmland in the Central Valley should be protected against

urban development, even if this means that some people’s

Private Property Rightswould be compromised. As seen in

the graphic at left (also refer to Figure 5B in Addendum B),

there is overwhelming support (71%) for this point of view…in

fact, nearly forty percent (38%) strongly agree with the notion

that the County’s farmlands should

be protected at all cost. Beyond

that, when respondents were told that one sixth of Fresno’s

PRIME farmlands are located inside or adjacent to the

spheres of influence of the 15 cities located in Fresno County

and, as such, should be protected from urbanization as

much as possible…as seen in the graphic at right (also refer

to Figure 8A in Addendum B), nearly eighty percent (78%)

embraced this notion.

Yet, as seen in the graphic at left (also refer to

Figure 11, Addendum B), little more than half (52%)

of Fresno County voters would support a bond

measure, should one be placed on the local ballot, to

provide the funding necessary to either purchase the

development rights through Agriculture Easements,

or to purchase strips of land (at fair market value) and

deed the land to Cities to function as Buffer Zones to

protectfarmlands from being paved over. While this

is, indeed, majority support, 2/3rds voter support is

needed for such a funding measure to pass. Thus,

such a funding measure would FAIL.

ITEM V A



Section 4.0

Farmland Conservation should NOT be abandoned

While Farmland Conservation in the Central Valley, in particular Fresno County,

is NOT FEASIBLE today…it should NOT be abandoned, altogether. At some point, the

matter should be revisited.

In fact, this conclusion was empirically

supported in the scientific survey of Fresno County

voters. As seen in the graphic at right, only 10% of

the respondents said that the model tested in this

research effort should be ABANDONED, altogether

(also refer to Figure 17, Addendum B); 18%, while

NOT embracing the specific model being tested, said

that the search for a better way to preserve and

protect prime farmlands in the Central Valley should

continue.

At the end of the day, more than two‐thirds (68%) of Fresno County voters liked

what they heard and said showed support for some form of Farmland Conservation in

the Central Valley, especially in Fresno County.

Section 5.0

In the long term, owners of prime farmlands will benefit from NOT selling or allowing these properties to be paved over

One of the key findings from Phase 1 of the present effort is that, in the long term,

owners of prime farmlands throughout the Central Valley (and especially in Fresno

County) would be wise NOT to allow this property to be paved over. Why? Because, at

the end of the day, the value of prime agriculture land in the Central Valley will be

beyond anyone’s imagination.

The Central Valley is one of the worldʹs most productive agricultural regions. On

less than 1 percent of the total farmland in the United States, the Central Valley

produces 8 percent of the nation’s agricultural output by value. About one‐sixth of the

irrigated land in the U.S. is in the Central Valley. The top five counties in agricultural

sales in the U.S. are in the Central Valley; Fresno County is number one, followed by

Tulare County, Kern County, Merced County, and Monterey County. Perhaps what the

ITEM V A



region is most noted for is the HIGH QUALITY of its produce; indeed, this is the key

to the future.

Today, agriculturalists in the Central Valley are competing with China and other

geographic regions in the world market. Due to a host of factors, these regions are able

to produce fruits, vegetables, and many other agriculture products at a far less cost than

can be done in the United States; however, the QUALITY of their yield is far less than

what is produced here in the Central Valley. Thus, while in the relatively short term,

these regions can be (and are) extremely competitive with the Central Valley….in the

long term, not so much. China is the prime example.

As China continues to expand its agricultural output, something else is

happening; it is creating a huge MIDDLE CLASS. People in the middle class want

high quality produce (fruits, vegetables, et al.); yet, these competing regions simply

cannot MATCH the quality that the Central Valley agriculture is known for. Therefore,

at the end of the day, the unique characteristics of the prime farmlands here in the

Central Valley, and especially Fresno County, will result in these farmlands becoming

invaluable. To pave these prime farmlands over would be foolhardy and irresponsible.

At least, this is what was stated by various prominent agriculturalists who were

interviewed in Phase 1 of the present effort.

Section 6.0

Summary Conclusion

This report concludes with three (3) Addenda.

Addendum ‘A’contains a listing of those individuals interviewed in Phase 1 of the

present effort, the Exploratory Phase.

Addendum ‘B’contains a comprehensive set of charts, graphs, and tables wherein

the empirical findings from Phase 2 of this effort, the Confirmatory Phase.

Addendum ‘C’ contains a copy of the Research Instrument (questionnaire)

showing percentages for each question in the scientific survey.

Should you wish additional input from SRI regarding the of the findings

presented herein, we remain telephone close and we monitor our e‐mail quite

closely.

ITEM V A



Addendum ‘A’ List of Those Interviewed in Phase 1

Last name First Name Organization Ballantyne Rick Executive Director, LAFCo

Bedwell Barry President, Calif. Grape & Tree Fruit League

Bergthold Keith Deputy Director, Planning & Development, City of Fresno

Batancourt Paul Prominent Agriculturalist

Blakely Bob California Citrus Mutual

Canha Manuel President, NISEI Farm League

Carlson Blake Kingsburg

Dibuduo Nat President/CEO, Allied Grape Growers

Diener John Prominent West Side Grower

Fortune Larry Principal, Fortune Associates and on LAFCo

Gorman Lynn Fresno County, Deputy Director of Planning and Public Works

Goto Glen CEO, Raisin Bargaining Association

Hafner Carol Fresno County Agriculture Commissioner

Hallowell Coke Madera Ag Industry

Harris Jeff Former BIA Ex. Director, presently with Wilson Homes

Harris John Chairman/CEO, Harris Enterprises (Harris Ranch)

Jacobson Ryan Executive Director, Fresno County Farm Bureau

Kilpatrick Greg Farmland Conservation Strategies, heavily involved inLandscape of Choice

King Holly Agri‐Business Consultant, formerly with Great Valley Center

Koehlher Dave Executive Director, San Joaquin Parkway Trust

Kreibel Barry CEO, Sun Maid

Larson Phil Fresno County Supervisor, District 1

Meyers Marvin Farmer in Firebaugh

Miller Sayre Prominent Agriculturalist in Clovis, McFarlane Farms

Monk Dan University of California, Co‐op

Nankiviell Deb Executive Director, Fresno Business Council

Nelson Joel President, California Citrus Mutual, Exeter

Newby Ken Retired Executive, Deloitte&Touche, member of Fresno Business Council

Pasrnargean Leland Fowler Packing

Pauley Don Kingsburg, City Manager

Perea Henry R. Fresno County Supervisor, District 3

Prandini Mike President/CEO, Central Valley BIA (Building Industry Association)

Prieto, Jr. Jerry Former Fresno County Agriculture Commissioner, Chaired Landscape of Choice

Ricchuiti Pat General Manager, PR Farms

Roberts Jeff Building Industry, Granville Homes

Robinson Gary Prominent farmer in Coalinga; President of Kings County Farm Bureau

Rodriguez Trini Fresno COG

Rogers Rocky City Manager, Reedley

Savala Mary League of Women Voters

Smitcamp Bill President and CEO, Wawona Foods

Southerlin Jeanette Fresno County Director, University of California, Co‐op

Stevenson Shawn Harlan Ranch, heavily involved with Landscape of Choice

Thompson Ed California Director & Senior Associate, American Farmland Trust

Valadez Chris California Grape & Free Fruit League

Woolf Stuart Major grower on West Side

Wright John Former Planning Director, City of Clovis

Yates A.J. Farmer and former Deputy Secretary of Agriculture for State of California

ITEM V A



Referred but not interviewed for a variety of reasons Arambula Juan State Assembly

Ayers Lee

Carlson Blake Kingsburg

Efird Russell

Errotabere Dan

Hallowell Coke Madera Ag Industry

Kasparian Alan Grape Grower in West Fresno

Perea Henry T. Fresno City Council (now Assemblyman)

Prosperi Dennis Madera County

Sebasto Alfreda

Walter Riley Attorney

ITEM V A



Addendum ‘B’

Figure 1Farmland Conservation

June 2011

How satisfied are you with the…Quality of Life

as a Resident of Fresno County?

Extremely Very Slightly Unsure Slightly Very ExtremelySatisfied Ref Dissatisfied

7

4230

2

115 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent

19%Dissatisfied

79%Satisfied

Question 1.0: Overall, how satisfied are you with the QUALITY OF LIFE as a resident of Fresno County?

ITEM V A




June 2011


June 2011

Local Issues of Concern(Core Values)

Question 2 series: I will read a list of local issue Please tell me, in order of priority, which three of these local issues are of most concern to you today.

4

10

14

12

12

17

24

4

6

7

6

11

11

15

15

12

14

1

3

3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Percent

1st + 2nd issue of concern

38

27

Q2.2 Lack of Jobs

Q2.1 Crime

Q2.3 Need to Protect Farmlands

Q2.10 More Sources of Water

Q2.5 Quality of Education

Q2.8 Unhealthy Air Quality

Q2.6 Local Taxes & Fees

Q2.7 Urban Sprawl

Q2.4 Better Street Maintenance

Q2.9 Public Transit Services

29

21

25

10

27

10

9

51

ITEM V A




June 2011

What Percentage of JOBS in Fresno County…Directly or Indirectly Related to the Agriculture Industry?

Question 3.0: To the best of your knowledge, what percentage of the jobs in Fresno County are either directly or indirectly related to the Agriculture Industry?

Approx Approx About Approx Significantly No Idea

7% 15% 1/3 1/2 more than1/2

3 6

33

2428

60

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent Reality

Approx. 15%

85%More than 15%

ITEM V A




June 2011

Preference: Farmland Conservation

vs.Private Property Rights?

Question 4.0: For the past two decades, there has been a movement in the Central Valley, especially in Fresno County, toward BALANCING Farmland Conservationwith Urban Growth and Development throughout the region. Do you believe that the very unique farmlands in Fresno County should be PRESERVED AT ALL COSTS; even if this means that the Private Property Rights of some property owners, including property owners with large holdings, will be compromised from time to time? Or…Do you believe that Private Property Rights are fundamental to the American way of life; that property owners have an inherent right to do with their property whatever they see fit, and what benefits them and their families, which includes developing or selling their land to a developer who may build homes or construct commercial and even industrial centers?

39%Protect Private Property Rights

55%Preserve Unique

Farmlands

6%Unsure/

Refused

ITEM V A



Figure 5AFarmland Conservation

June 2011

Attitudes Regarding Farmland Conservation…

Farmland Conservation Reducesthe Value of these Properties

Question 6.1: Public policies aimed at Farmland Conservation, while being well-intended…restrict the use of these properties, thus reducethe value of farmlands in Fresno County in no small way.

Strongly Somewhat Unsure Somewhat StronglyAgree Agree Refused Disagree Disagree

13

38

15 21 13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent

51%Agree

34%Disagree

ITEM V A



Figure 5BFarmland Conservation

June 2011


Farmland should be Protected at ALL Costs

Question 6.2: Farmland in the Central Valley, and especially in Fresno County, should be protected against urban development, even if this means that some people’s Private Property Rights will be compromised.


38 33

5 1014

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent

71%Agree

25%Disagree

ITEM V A



ITEM V A



Figure 5CFarmland Conservation

June 2011


To Protect Property Values there MUST be NO Restrictions

Question 6.3: Property value is determined by its owners having the ability to “sell” their property at any point in time and for virtually any use (especially for housing and/or commercial development); in order be positioned to do this, it is imperative that its USE is NOT RESTRICTED.


1730

923 21

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent

47%Agree

46%Disagree

ITEM V A



Figure 5D

Farmland ConservationJune 2011


Farmland Conservation RequiresProperty Owners to be Made Whole

Question 6.4: In order to succeed, any land use plan for preserving farmlands in Fresno County MUST enable landowners, when they sell, to recover equity from their property without developing it.


2940

1210 9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent

69%Agree

19%Disagree

ITEM V A



Figure 6A


Aware of ‘Smart Growth’

Question 7.1: Before today’s interview, were you aware of ‘Smart Growth’; if so, how aware were you?

Extremely Somewhat Not At All Unsure/Aware Aware Aware Ref

15

3648

10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent

51%Aware

ITEM V A




June 2011

Approve or Disapprove of‘Smart Growth’

Question 7.2: Whether or not you were aware of the trend toward Smart Growth before

today’s interview, based upon the description I just gave you, is Smart Growth

a trend that you approve or disapprove of?

3%Unsure/Refused

13%SomewhatDisapprove

36% Somewhat

Approve

71%Approve 26%

Disapprove

13%Strongly

Disapprove

35% StronglyApprove

ITEM V A




June 2011

Arguments For/Against ‘Smart Growth’…

There is Too Much Urban Sprawl

Question 8.1 There is TOO MUCH URBAN SPRAWL in Fresno County. Higher density housing is needed to control urban sprawl in the region.

29 32

6 17 16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent

61%Support

33%Oppose

Much More Somewhat No effect/ Somewhat Much MoreSupport More Support Ref More Oppose Oppose

ITEM V A




June 2011


‘Smart Growth’ Eliminates Unnecessary Loss of Prime Farmland

Question 8.2 Much of the prime farmland in Fresno County that is being lost to urbanization is unnecessary; by embracing ‘Smart Growth’, this unnecessary loss of prime farmland is virtually eliminated.

31 34

6 1415

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent

65%Support

29%Oppose


ITEM V A



Figure 7C



‘Smart Growth’ is the Most Important Tactic for Preserving Farmland

Question 8.3 Given that most of the growing cities in Fresno County are located in the midst of the County’s most strategic and prime farmland, increasing the efficiency of housing and commercial development through ‘Smart Growth’ is the most important thing that can be done to conserve the county’s irreplaceable farmland.

2838

8 1214

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent

66%Support

26%Oppose


ITEM V A



Figure 7DFarmland Conservation

June 2011


Current Development Rates will Remove 70% of Prime Farmland by 2050

Question 8.4 If no change in current development patterns occurs, another 97,600 acres of land will be urbanized in Fresno County by 2050, roughly doubling the current urbanized area in the County. Far more important, approximately 70% of this land that will be converted to housing and commercial development (or about 105 square miles) will involve prime or strategic farmland; thereby, REMOVING these important farmlands from agricultural production.

31 27

6 1422

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent

58%Support

36%Oppose


ITEM V A



Figure 7E



‘Smart Growth’ is Needed to Slow Growth Inside Spheres of Influence

Question 8.6 Some of the County’s prime farmland is located inside the existing “spheres of influence” of the cities throughout the County; therefore, for all practical purposes, these farmlands are earmarked for being converted to future urban development, thus lost to the agriculture industry, permanently. Clearly, it is essential to adopt Smart Growth in order to slow down the actual loss of these prime farmlands located INSIDE the existing Spheres of Influence as these communities continue to grow and expand.

34 32

6 15 13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent

66%Support

28%Oppose


ITEM V A



Figure 7F



At the Present Rate, Rural Residential Development will Consume 55,000

More Acres of Prime Farmland

Question 8.7 Rural residential development presently consumes roughly one quarter of all the developed land in the Fresno County; if this development pattern continues at its present pace, another 55,000 acres of prime farmland could be removed from agriculture.

3226

7 1421

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent

58%Support

36%Oppose


ITEM V A




June 2011


Prime Farmland INSIDE Existing Spheres of Influence Must be Protected

Question 9.1 One sixth of Fresno’s prime farmlands is located inside or adjacent to the spheres of influence of the 15 cities located in Fresno County; these lands have to be protected from urbanization as much as possible.

49

29

7 9 60

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent

78%Support

14%Oppose


ITEM V A




June 2011


Due to Advancements in Technology Farmland Conservation is Less Critical

Question 9.2 Due to advances in automation and farming technologiescombined with difficulties having to do with recruiting farm workers, more and more agriculture production is being sent to Mexico, Africa, and especially to China. As a result, the need to preserve productive farmlands in Fresno County is becoming FAR LESS IMPORTANT, over time.

49

217

815

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent

70%Support

23%Oppose


ITEM V A



Figure 8CFarmland Conservation

June 2011


It is Imperative that NO MORE Prime Farmland is Lost to Development

Question 9.3 Since 1990, nearly 70% of all the land developed in Fresno County was prime or unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance. These farmlands have been lost to agriculture, forever; it is imperative that no more prime ag land in Fresno County is lost to residential or commercial development.

48

30

6 9 70

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent

78%Support

16%Oppose


ITEM V A



Figure 8D



By 2040, Fresno County will Lose 20% of its Irrigated Farmland & $700 Million

Question 9.4 By the year 2040, if nothing changes, Fresno County will lose approximately 20% of its irrigated farmland and experience annual losses of about $700 million of the revenues presently being generated through Fresno County’s Agriculture Industry. This trend MUST be stopped; Farmland Conservation is more important now, than it has ever been.

55

27

3 8 70

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent

82%Support

15%Oppose


ITEM V A



Figure 8E



Jobs and Housing MUST be Consistentwith County’s Agriculture-based Economy

Question 9.5 We need to provide jobs and housing in a manner that protects the natural resources that are vital to our agriculture-based economy. Therefore, Farmland Conservation is essential in Fresno County.

4936

4 56

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent

85%Support

11%Oppose


ITEM V A



Figure 9


Support forAgricultural Easements

Question 10.1: Without knowing more than you know now, does an Agricultural Easement seem to be a fair and equitablemechanism for making Farmland Conservation in Fresno County possible?

62%YES

33%NO

Question 10.2: Do you think Agricultural Easements merit being considered seriously by local government agencies in order to implement Farmland Conservation in Fresno County.

5%

49%Definitely

Yes

36%Not Viable Mechanism

2%Ref

Need to Know More

Refused

13%

ITEM V A




June 2011

Support Buffer Zonesto Protect Prime Farmlands

Question 11.1: Without knowing more about these buffer zones than you know now, is

this something that you would approve of for protecting PRIME farmland from urban

development?

1%Unsure/Refused

11%

52% Probably

YES

81%Yes

7%29%

Definitely YES

DefinitelyNOT

ProbablyNOT

18%NO

ITEM V A




June 2011

Approve Buffer Zones Used for:

Trails, Parks, Community Gardens, or Open Space

Question 11.2: While urban development would be PROHIBITED in these bufferzones, local government would be permitted to develop regional trails andparks inside these strips of land; also, the buffer zones could be used forcommunity gardens, or simply be dedicated to open space. This could be oneway to provide regional parks and trails throughout Fresno County. Is this anidea that you would approve of?

1%Unsure/Refused44%

Probably YES

75%Yes

31% Definitely

YES

12%Definitely

NOT

12%Probably

NOT

24%NO

ITEM V A




June 2011

Support/Oppose:Bond

to Purchase Easements, Buy Property to Deed to Cities

Question 12.1: If a BOND Measure were to be placed on the local ballot to provide the funds necessary to either purchase the Development Rights through Agriculture Easements, or to purchase these strips of land outright and deed them to the City — assuming the BUFFER ZONES would be used to provide regional trails or parks in your community, or used for community gardens or dedicated to open space, would you vote YES or NO for such a Measure?

Depends on Amount/Unsure/Refused

33% Probably

YES

52%Yes

42%NO

19% Definitely

YES

25%Definitely

NO

17%Probably

NO

6%

ITEM V A




June 2011

Question 13.1: If Buffer Zones were created to separate prime farmlands from urban areas where residential and commercial development will be allowed to take place, and these buffer zones were dedicated to regional trails, community parks, and opens space…would you vote YES or NO to authorize the creation of a Landscape Maintenance District to provide the necessary funding for proper maintenance of a buffer zone in your community.

Support/Oppose:Landscape Maintenance Assessment

to Maintain Buffer Zones

Depends on Amount/Unsure/Refused

38% Probably

YES

60%Yes

38%NO

22% Definitely

YES

22%Definitely

NO

16%Probably

NO

2%

ITEM V A




June 2011

Exercise is Part of Most Residents’ Lifestyle

Question 14.0: Today, people — especially Californians — are becoming more and more aware of the benefits to their quality of life of making exercise and similar activities part of their regular routine. Do you make exercise part of your regular routine…either in your home, outside your home, in an exercise studio, or in the outdoors?

77%YES 23%

NO

ITEM V A




June 2011

Having Access toParks, Trails & Open Space

is Important

Question 15.0 Regional parks, trails, and open space can bring a variety of benefits to one’s lifestyle; for example, they can bring physical, social, spiritual, and mental benefits to those who use them for such activities as hiking, biking, or simply escaping the pressures of daily life. How important is having access to parks, trails, and open space in or near the community in which you reside?


38 38

1 12 11

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent

76%Important

23%Not Important

ITEM V A




June 2011

Developing & MaintainingParks and Trails is Desirable

Question 16.0 If there were a way for local government (meaning the City in which you reside or in the unincorporated section of Fresno County in which you reside) to develop and maintain additional community parks and trails …what priority should be placed on moving in this direction?

Top Medium Low Not at allPriority Priority Priority a Priority

10

51

24

15

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

ent

61%Important

ITEM V A



Question 17.1: Before today’s interview, were you aware of the existence of the San Joaquin Valley Blue Print; if so, how aware were you.

70%Not

Aware26%

SomewhatAware

4%Extremely

Aware

ITEM V A




June 2011

Feelings are Mixed Regarding theSan Joaquin Valley Blue Print

Question 17.2: Whether or not you were aware of San Joaquin Valley Blue Print before today’s interview, based upon the fact that it has been embraced by eight regional planning agencies throughout the Valley, combined with the fact that this planning process is driven by Smart Growth Principles…is this an approach to land use planning that you think is important with respect to the future of the Central Valley, in particular, Fresno County; or, is it just another government-sponsored program that is basically a waste of time and money; or, do you have no feelings either way?

28%Waste ofTime &Money

38%Important

to Valley’s Future

34%No Feelings/

Refused

ITEM V A




June 2011

There is Significant Support for Model of Farmland Conservation Tested

Question 18.0: I will SUMMARIZE the model of Farmland Conservation for Fresno County that is presently being envisioned; then ask if you think this is a direction that local officials should take…or, would you advise local officials to find a better way to preserve farmlands throughout the County…or, would you advise local officials to abandon, altogether, the notion of Farmland Conservation in Fresno County?

Unsure/Refused

23% Definitely

Embrace Model Envisioned

45% Somewhat

Embrace Model Envisioned

18%Do NOT

Support Approach, Find Better Way

10%

4%

Do NOTSupport,

Abandon

68%Supportfor Model Tested

ITEM V A



ITEM V A



Demographicsof Survey Respondents


June 2011

Length of Residency0 to 5 years 6%6 to 10 9%11 to 25 36%Over 25 years 48%Refused 1%

Age18 to 25 9%26 to 35 9%36 to 50 19%51 to 65 33%Over 65 years 30%Refused 0%

Household IncomeUnder $25,000 18%$25,001 to $50,000 25%$50,001 to $75,000 20%$75,001 to $100,000 15%Over $100,000 13%Refused 9%

EducationLess than High School 4%High School 16%Some College 33%College Graduate 28%Graduate School 18%Refused 1%

EthnicityCaucasian 66%Hispanic 21%African American/Black 2%Hmong 1%Native American 2%Asian 2%Other 4%Refused 2%

GenderMale 45%Female 55%

ITEM V A



Demographicsof Survey Respondents


June 2011

# of Children Under 18None 76%One 10%Two 9%Three or more 5%Refused 0%

IdeologyLiberal 19%Moderate 27%Conservative 51%Refused 3%

Home OwnershipOwn 75%Rent 23%Refused 2%

ITEM V A



Addendum ‘C’

Council of County Fresno Governments

Farmland Conservation N=500

QUESTIONNAIRE

Hello. My name is _____________________ and I am with the Survey Research Institute. We are conducting a survey of Fresno County residents on behalf of the Fresno Council of Governments, also known as Fresno COG. COG officials would like to learn more about residents’ perceptions and concerns regarding a concept that has become known as Farmland Conservation, which involves BALANCING the Conservation of farmland in the Central Valley, especially in Fresno County, with Urban Growth and Development throughout the region.

Would you mind sharing a few minutes of your time and respond to our brief questionnaire?

NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: If respondent asks, "How long will the survey take?" Answer: “About 15 minutes"

1.0 Overall, how satisfied are you with the QUALITYOF LIFE as a resident of Fresno County?Would you say you are…

Extremely Very Only slightly Neutral/ Slightly Very Extremely Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Unsure Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

7% 42% 30% 2% 11% 5% 3%

2.0 I will now READ a list of local issues. I will then read the list a second time; please tell me, in order of priority, which three of these local issues are of most concern to you today? (1=top priority, 2=2nd priority, 3=3rd priority).

1st 2nd 3rd Total

17% 12% 12% 41% 2.1 Crime in your community

24% 14% 14% 52% 2.2 Local & regional economy, including lack of jobs

12% 15% 17% 44% 2.3 The need to protect farmlands throughout the Central Valley, and especially in Fresno County, from being taken out of agriculture production

3% 6% 5% 14% 2.4 Need for better street maintenance, such as repairing pot holes

14% 11% 13% 38% 2.5 Quality of education being provided to local youth

4% 6% 7% 17% 2.6 Local taxes and fees

3% 7% 6% 16% 2.7 Too much growthand urban sprawl

10% 11% 10% 31% 2.8 Poor &unhealthy air quality in Fresno County

1% 4% 4% 9% 2.9 Limited or inconvenient public transit services in Fresno County

12% 15% 12% 39% 2.10 Need for more sources of water in the Central Valley

3.0 To the best of your knowledge, what percentage of the jobs in Fresno County are either directly or indirectly related to the Agriculture Industry? Would you say…

Approx. Approx. About. Approx. Significantly more No idea Refused 7% 15% One third One half than half [DO NOT read]

ITEM V A



3% 6% 33% 24% 28% 6% 0%

Benchmark Support for Farmland Conservation in Fresno County

4.0 For the past two decades, there has been a movement in the Central Valley, especially in Fresno County, toward BALANCINGFarmland Conservation with Urban Growth and Development throughout the region.

On the one hand, Fresno County is one of the most productive agricultural regions in the nation; in fact, it is one of only five Mediterranean growing regions of the world. Therefore, should significant portions of this farmland be paved over, these rich agriculture lands will be lost forever to urbanization.

On the other hand, the Central Valley is believed to be one of the areas of the country that will experience the most explosive population growth over the next several decades; thus, much of the Fresno County’s existing agricultural land will be urbanized…including prime farmlands.

Given what you know about the role that agriculture plays in the economic and social fabric of Fresno County, today…

55% Do you believe that the very unique farmlands in Fresno County should be PRESERVED AT ALL COSTS; even if this means that the Private Property Rights of some property owners, including property owners with large holdings, will be compromised from time to time? Or…

39% Do you believe that Private Property Rights are fundamental to the American way of life; that property owners have an inherent right to do with their property whatever they see fit, and what benefits them and their families, which includes developing or selling their land to a developer who may build homes or construct commercial and even industrial centers?

6% Unsure, don’t know/Refused (DO NOT READ this option)

6.0 Two major studies have been produced in the last 15 years wherein the Agriculture Industry and the business community collaborated to create a VISION for bringing together farmland conservation with urban sprawl.The first report, A Landscape of Choice, was embraced by virtually every public agency in Fresno County as well as a host of special interest groups and organizations in the private sector. The theme that underlies this study was that farmlands in Fresno County should, indeed, be preserved and protected. However, this study did NOT include an implementation plan or strategy.

The second study, Model Farmland Conservation for Fresno County, was intended to bring forward a plan for implementing Farmland Conservation in Fresno County. As it turned out, however, there was NOT a consensus among the stakeholders regarding how best to implement Farmland Conservation.

The primary barrier to implementation has to do with protecting PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. Thus, the remainder of the present survey is designed to test specific elements of an Implementation Plan for Farmland Conservation in Fresno County. In order to succeed, any plan that comes forward MUST be embraced by registered voters and property owners throughout the County; therefore, your input is invaluable.

Core attitudes regarding Farmland Conservation in Fresno County

I will read several statements having to DO WITH Farmland Conservation in Fresno County; then ask whether you agree or disagree with each statement. When responding, please use the following scale:

5 = Strongly Agree 4 = Somewhat Agree 3 = Don't really agree or disagree 3 = Somewhat Disagree 1 = Strongly Disagree

6.1 Public policies aimed at Farmland Conservation, while being well-intended…restrict the use of these properties, thus reducethe value of farmlands in Fresno County in no small way. Do you agree or disagree with this point of view; and, would that be strongly or somewhat Agree or Disagree?

ITEM V A



Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Agree Agree Unsure Disagree Disagree

13% 38% 15% 21% 13%

6.2 The Central Valley is one of American’s national treasures; as noted a moment ago, it is one of only five regions of its kind in the world. The Central Valley is world renowned for growing and producing high quality, healthy, and wholesome food, fiber, and commodities for consumption throughout the United States, indeed, the world. Furthermore, the agriculture industryin the Valley is highly productive; with less than one percent of U.S. farmland, the Central Valley supplies 8 percent of U.S. agricultural output. Therefore, farmland in the Central Valley, and especially in Fresno County, should be protected against urban development, even if this means that some people’s Private Property Rights will be compromised. Do you agree or disagree with this point of view; and, would that be strongly or somewhat Agree or Disagree?


38% 33% 5% 10% 14%

6.3 Property value is determined by its owners having the ability to “sell” their property at any point in time and for virtually any use (especially for housing and/or commercial development); in order be positioned to do this, it is imperative that its USE is NOT RESTRICTED. Do you agree or disagree with this point of view; and, would that be strongly or somewhat Agree or Disagree with this opinion?


17% 30% 9% 23% 21% 6.4 In order to succeed, any land use plan for preserving farmlands in Fresno County MUST enable landowners, when they sell, to recover equity from their property without developing it.

Do you StronglyAgree,SomewhatAgree, SomewhatDisagree, or StronglyDisagree with this statement?


29% 40% 12% 10% 9%

Public Opinion in Fresno County re: Smart Growth

7.0 I would now like to ask you opinion about a growing concept called ‘Smart Growth’.

In order to avoid urbansprawl,Smart Growth concentrates growth in compact, walkable, bicycle-friendly urban centers. Further, in order to encourage people to stay out of their cars, Smart Growth subdivisions are typically located adjacent to, or near, a mass transit center. Smart Growthdevelopments, wherever possible, include neighborhood schools and mixed-use development; for example, multi-story units with residential housing upstairs and commercial development or an office complex downstairs. Smart Growth offers a range of housing choices.

7.1 Before today’s interview, were you aware of ‘Smart Growth’; if so, how aware were you. Would that be…?

15% Extremely Aware

36% Somewhat Aware

48% Not at all Aware, this is the first I’ve heard the term.

1% Unsure/don’t know/Refused (DO NOT READ this option)

7.2 Advocates of Smart Growth hold that the primary BENEFITS of this approach to urban development are: (i) reduced consumption and conversion of agricultural and natural land to urban uses, (ii) lower housing costs as a result of higher density housing, (iii) improved delivery of public

ITEM V A



services and emergency responses, (iv) improved regional transit systems such as light rail, (v) revitalization of urban centers that have become run down, and (vi) enhanced economic development through a greater ability to attract new businesses due to a concentrated workforce.

Whether or not you were aware of the trend toward Smart Growth before today’s interview, based upon the description I just gave you, is Smart Growth a trend that you approve or disapprove of; and would that be…

35% Strongly approve 36% Somewhat approve 13% Somewhat disapprove 13% Strongly disapprove 3% Unsure/don’t know/Refused (DO NOT READ this option)

Test ARGUMENTS For and Against Smart Growth

8.0 I will now read several statements about why it IS or IS NOT necessary to support Smart Growth in Fresno County. After I read each statement, please tell me — if you heard the statement from a credible source — would you be more likely to support or more likely to oppose Smart Growth for future housing, commercial, and industrial development in Fresno County. More specifically, please tell me if the statement would make you much more likelyto support, somewhat more likely to support, somewhat more likelyto oppose, much more likely to oppose the Smart Growth in Fresno County; or, would it have no effect on your opinion. Here’s the first statement:

8.1 There is TOO MUCH URBAN SPRAWL in Fresno County. Higher density housing is needed to control urban sprawl in the region. Would this argument make you…

MUCH more likely SOMEWHAT more likely No effect on SOMEWHAT more likely MUCH more likely Unsure/DK to support to support my opinion to oppose to oppose Refused Smart Growth Smart Growth Smart Growth Smart Growth

29% 32% 5% 17% 16% 1%

8.2 Much of the prime farmland in Fresno County that is being lost to urbanization is unnecessary; by embracing Smart Growth, this unnecessary loss of prime farmland is virtually eliminated. Would this argument make you…


31% 34% 5% 14% 15% 1%

8.3 Given that most of the growing cities in Fresno County are located in the midst of the County’s most strategic and prime farmland, increasing the efficiency of housing and commercial development through Smart Growth is the most important thing that can be done to conserve the county’s irreplaceable farmland. Would this argument make you…


28% 38% 7% 12% 14% 1%

8.4 If no change in current development patterns occurs, another 97,600 acres of land will be urbanized in Fresno County by 2050, roughly doubling the current urbanized area in the County. Far more important, approximately 70% of this land that will be converted to housing and commercial development (or about 105 square miles) will involve prime or strategic farmland; thereby, REMOVING these important farmlands from agricultural production. Would this argument make you…

ITEM V A




31% 27% 5% 14% 22% 1%

8.6 Some of the County’s prime farmland is located inside the existing “spheres of influence” of the cities throughout the County; therefore, for all practical purposes, these farmlands are earmarked for being converted to future urban development, thus lost to the agriculture industry, permanently. Clearly, it is essential to adopt Smart Growth in order to slow down the actual loss of these prime farmlands located INSIDE the existing Spheres of Influence as these communities continue to grow and expand. Would this argument make you…


34% 32% 5% 15% 13% 1%

8.7 Rural residential development presently consumes roughly one quarter of all the developed land in the Fresno County; if this development pattern continues at its present pace, another 55,000 acres of prime farmland could be removed from agriculture. Would this argument make you…


32% 26% 6% 14% 21% 1%

Test ARGUMENTS For and Against Farmland Conservation

9.0 I will now read several statements about why it IS or IS NOT necessary to protect existing farmlands in Fresno County, especially prime farmlands that are most likely to remain economically viable for high-value commercial agriculture in the long term. After I read each statement, please tell me — if you heard the statement from a credible source — would you be more likely to support or more likely to oppose Farmland Conservation; in other words, protect prime farmlands against urban development, even if this means that some people’s Private Property Rights will be compromised. More specifically, please tell me if the statement would make you much more likelyto support, somewhat more likely to support, somewhat more likelyto oppose, much more likely to oppose Farmland Conservation; or, would it have no effect on your opinion. Here’s the first statement:

9.1 One sixth of Fresno’s prime farmlands is located inside or adjacent to the spheres of influence of the 15 cities located in Fresno County; these lands have to be protected from urbanization as much as possible. Would this argument make you…

MUCH more likely SOMEWHAT more likely No effect on SOMEWHAT more likely MUCH more likely Unsure/DK to support to support my opinion to oppose to oppose Refused Farmland Conservation Farmland Conservation Farmland Conservation Farmland Conservation

49% 29% 7% 9% 6% 0%

9.2 Due to advances in automation and farming technologies combined with difficulties having to do with recruiting farm workers, more and more agriculture production is being sent to Mexico, Africa, and especially to China. As a result, the need to preserve productive farmlands in Fresno County is becoming FAR LESS IMPORTANT, over time. Would this argument make you…


49% 21% 6% 8% 15% 1%

9.3 Since 1990, nearly 70% of all the land developed in Fresno County was prime or unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance. These farmlands have been lost to agriculture, forever; it is imperative that no more prime ag land in Fresno County is lost to residential or commercial development.Would this argument make you…

ITEM V A




48% 30% 5% 9% 7% 1%

9.4 By the year 2040, if nothing changes, Fresno County will lose approximately 20% of its irrigated farmland and experience annual losses of about $700 million of the revenues presently being generated through Fresno County’s Agriculture Industry. This trend MUST be stopped; Farmland Conservation is more important now, then it has ever been. Would this argument make you…


55% 27% 3% 8% 7% 0%

9.5 We need to provide jobs and housing in a manner that protects the natural resources that are vital to our agriculture-based economy. Therefore, Farmland Conservation is essential in Fresno County. Would this argument make you…


49% 36% 4% 5% 6% 0%

Support for Agricultural Easements

10.0 One way to protect farmlands in Fresno County from urban development is to rezone the property and classify it as PERMANENT farmland, thus removing the property owner’s ability to develop the property or sell the farmland to homebuilders or commercial developers. The consequence of doing this, of course, is that the value of the property is significantly reduced. Therefore, few (if any) property owners would be inclined to do this…UNLESS there was a mechanism in place that allows them to recover the equity that they would have received had they sold the property to a developer. There is, indeed, such a mechanism; it is called an Agricultural Easement.

An easement is when an individual or other entity (such as government agency) purchases the right to use land belonging to someone else for a specific purpose. The price of the easement would be based upon FAIR MARKET VALUE, assuming the farmland could be sold to a developer or home builder. This could be for a specific period of time or into perpetuity; of course, the price would reflect the time limit.

10.1 Without knowing more than you know now, does an Agricultural Easement seem to be a fair and equitable mechanism for making Farmland Conservation in Fresno County possible?

62% YES 33% NO 5% Refused (DO NOT READ this option)

10.2 Do you think Agricultural Easements merit being considered seriously by local government agencies in order to implement Farmland Conservation in Fresno County. And, would that be…?

49% Definitely YES 13% Perhaps, but I would need to know more (DO NOT READ this option) 36% NO; this is NOT a viable mechanism for implementing Farmland

Conservation 2% Refused (DO NOT READ this option)

Support for Buffer Zones

11.0 Another way to protect prime farmlands from urban development is to create BUFFER ZONES along those portions of a City’s approved sphere of influence, or urban limit line, that abuts prime farmland. These buffer zones would be a relatively narrow strip of land on which NO residential, commercial, or industrial

ITEM V A



development would be permitted. The concept behind BUFFER ZONES is that urban development would take place INSIDE the buffer zone; the land outside these buffer zones would be used primarily for agriculture.

11.1 Without knowing more about these buffer zones than you know now, is this something that you would approve of for protecting PRIME farmland from urban development; and, would that be…

29% Definitely YES 52% Probably YES, but you would need to know more about these buffer zones 11% PROBABLY NOT 7% Definitely NOT 1% Refused (DO NOT READ this option)

11.2 While urban development would be PROHIBITED in these buffer zones, local government would be permitted to develop regional trails and parks inside these strips of land; also, the buffer zones could be used for community gardens, or simply be dedicated to open space. This could be one way to provide regional parks and trails throughout Fresno County. Is this an idea that you would approve of; and would that be…

31% Definitely YES 44% Probably YES 12% PROBABLY NOT 12% Definitely NOT 1% Refused (DO NOT READ this option)

Support for Bond to Purchase Easements or Buy Property and Deed it to the City

12.0 One drawback to creating BUFFER ZONES to separate prime farmland from property that is inside a City’s sphere of influence, thus, slated for urban development, is that the City would either have to purchase the development rights on the strips of land through Agriculture Easements, or purchase the property, outright. In either case, the landowner would have to be compensated based upon fair market value (thus, respecting the sellers’ Private Property Rights). In other words, the purchase price would be based upon the assumption that the property could, in fact, be sold to home builders or commercial developers. Cities do NOT presently have a funding source to do this. So, my question is this...

12.1 If a BOND Measure were to be placed on the local ballot to provide the funds necessary to either purchase the Development Rights through Agriculture Easements, or to purchase these strips of land outright and deed them to the City — assuming the BUFFER ZONES would be used to provide regional trails or parks in your community, or used for community gardens or dedicated to open space, would you vote YES or NO for such a Measure? And, would that be…

19% Definitely YES

33% Probably YES

2% Depends upon the amount of the tax (DO NOT READ this option)

17% Probably NO

25% Definitely NO

4% Unsure/DK/Refused (DO NOT READ this response).

Support for LLAD to Maintain Buffer Zones

13.0 Another reality is that if regional trails and parks are developed inside these buffer zones, each City would be responsible for proper maintenance of these recreation facilities. Typically, the on-going maintenance of community parks, trails, and open space is funded by creating a Landscape Maintenance District. Thus, if authorized by property owners in the community who benefit from these

ITEM V A



trails and parks, each property owned would be assessed, annually. Such funding mechanisms require simple majority support of property owners who BENEFIT from the public parks, trails, what-have-you. So, my question is this...

13.1 If Buffer Zones were created to separate prime farmlands from urban areas where residential and commercial development will be allowed to take place, and these buffer zones were dedicated to regional trails, community parks, and opens space…would you vote YES or NO to authorize the creation of a Landscape Maintenance District to provide the necessary funding for proper maintenance of a buffer zone in your community. And, would that be…

22% Definitely YES

38% Probably YES

1% Depends upon the amount of the tax (DO NOT READ this option)

16% Probably NO

22% Definitely NO

1% Unsure/DK/Refused (DO NOT READ this response). 5 = Definitely YES

Importance of Community Parks, Trails & Open Space to Lifestyle and Quality of Life

14.0 Today, people — especially Californians — are becoming more and more aware of the benefits to their quality of life of making exercise and similar activities part of their regular routine. Do you make exercise part of your regular routine…either in your home, outside your home, in an exercise studio, or in the outdoors?

77% YES

23% NO

0% Refused (DO NOT READ this option)

15.0 Regional parks, trails, and open space can bring a variety of benefits to one’s lifestyle; for example, they can bring physical, social, spiritual, and mental benefits to those who use them for such activities as hiking, biking, or simply escaping the pressures of daily life. How important is having access to parks, trails, and open space in or near the community in which you reside? Is it…

Extremely Somewhat Unsure Not very Not at all Refused Important Important (Do NOT Read) Important Important (Do NOT Read) 38% 38% 1% 12% 11% 0%

16.0 If there were a way for local government (meaning the City in which you reside or in the unincorporated section of Fresno County in which you reside) to develop and maintain additional community parks and trails …what priority should be placed on moving in this direction?

10% Absolute, top priority; develop community parks and trails as soon as possible;

51% A medium priority, added if and when the budget allows? Or, should they be considered a…

24% Low priority, not really needed at this time; or…

15% Not at all a priority

0% Don't know/unsure/Refused [DO NOT read]

The Blue Print Process

17.0 I would like to ask your opinion about the San Joaquin ValleyBlue Print. The Blue Print is a land use planning process that is intended to serve as a framework for guiding those local jurisdictions throughout the Central Valley that have land use authority through 2050. It has been embraced by eight regional planning agencies throughout the Valley. The San Joaquin Valley Blue Print is based upon Smart Growth Principles.

17.1 Before today’s interview, were you aware of the existence of the San Joaquin Valley Blue Print; if so, how aware were you. Would that be…?

4% Extremely Aware

ITEM V A



26% Somewhat Aware

70% Not at all Aware, this is the first I’ve heard the term. 0% Unsure/don’t know/Refused(DO NOT READ this option)

17.2 Whether or not you were aware of San Joaquin Valley Blue Print before today’s interview, based upon the fact that it has been embraced by eight regional planning agencies throughout the Valley, combined with the fact that this planning process is driven by Smart Growth Principles…is this an approach to land use planning that you think is important with respect to the future of the Central Valley, in particular, Fresno County; or, is it just another government-sponsored program that is basically a waste of time and money; or, do you have no feelings either way?

38% Important to the future of the Central Valley 28% A waste of time and money 32% No feelings either way 2% Refused (DO NOT READ this option)

Overall Support for Model being Tested

18.0 I will SUMMARIZE the model of Farmland Conservation for Fresno County that is presently being envisioned; then ask if you think this is a direction that local officials should take…or, would you advise local officials to find a better way to preserve farmlands throughout the County…or, would you advise local officials to abandon, altogether, the notion of Farmland Conservation in Fresno County?

The model being envisioned has the following elements.

5. One of the underlying principles of the Farmland Conservation Model is Smart Growth. This is a movement away from conventional housing developments, comprised of relatively low density, detached single-family housing…to designing higher-density, multi-use subdivisions, located near mass transit centers.

6. BUFFER ZONES would be created along those portions of a City’s approved sphere of influence, or urban limit line, that abuts prime farmland. These buffer zones would be relatively narrow strips of land on which NO residential, commercial, or industrial development would be permitted; however local government would be permitted to develop regional trails, parks, community gardens inside these strips of land; or simply be dedicated to open space.

7. Local voters would be asked to authorize a modest tax to be used to PURCHASE the development rights on these narrow strips of land that would function as Buffer Zones; or, to purchase the strips of land outright (at fair market value) and deed the land to the respective City, which would take ownership of these Buffer Zones. These monies could also be used to develop regional trails and parks, or other uses that benefit local residents. In order to be authorized, this tax would require 2/3rds voter support and would only be assessed to property owners who reside in or adjacent to the community which will take ownership of the Buffer Zones.

8. Local property owners would be asked to authorize a Landscape Maintenance District that would generate the funding needed to properly maintain these buffer zones and keep them safe for use by local residents. This funding mechanism would require simple majority support from property owners whose families will directly benefit from these regional trails, parks, community gardens, and/or open space.

My question is this. Do you...

23% Definitely embrace this model for Farmland Conservation in Fresno County and throughout the Central Valley; thus, you would encourage local officials to move forward, immediately.

45% Somewhat embrace the model being envisioned; but, more work is needed. The model for Farmland Conservation in Fresno County being envisioned should be revisited and adjustments made; however, the effort should definitely continue.

18% Do NOT support this approach; local officials should find a better way to preserve farmlands throughout Fresno County.

ITEM V A



10% Do NOT support this approach; in fact, the notion of Farmland Conservation in Fresno County and the entire Central Valley should be abandoned, altogether.

4% Unsure/DK/Refused (DO NOT READ this response).

Demographic Profile

Finally, I have a few final questions about you. 19.0 How long have you lived in Fresno County?

6% 0 to 5 years 9% 6 to 10 years 36% 11 to 35 years 48% Over 35 years 1% D/K/Refused (DO NOT READ this response)

20.0 How many children do you have living at home under the age of 18?

76% None 10% One 9% Two 5% Three or More 0% Refused (DO NOT READ this response)

21.0 Into what age range do you fall?

9% 18 to 25 9% 26 to 35 19% 36 to 50 33% 51 to 65 30% Over 65 0% Refused (DO NOT READ this option)

22.0 Do you own or rent your home?

75% Own 23% Rent 2% Refused (DO NOT READ this response) 23.0 How many years of school have you completed?

4% Less than High School 16% High School graduate (or Trade School) 33% Some college 28% College graduate 18% Graduate school, Professional school 1% Refused (DO NOT READ this option)

24.0 Using the traditional political labels would you describe yourself as liberal, moderate,orconservative?

19% Liberal 27% Moderate 51% Conservative 3% Refused (DO NOT READ this response)

ITEM V A



25.0 Into what range does your annual household income fall?

18% under $25,000 25% between $25,000 and $50,000 20% between $50,000 and $75,000 15% between $75,000 and $100,000 13% Over $100,00 9% Refused (DO NOT READ this option)

26.0 What is your ethnic background?

66% White or Caucasian 21% Hispanic/Latino 2% African American or Black 1% Hmong 2% Native American/Alaskan Native 0% Native Hawaiian & other Pacific Islander 2% Asian 4% Other 2% Refused (DO NOT READ this option)

Thank the intervieweefor participating in the survey and politely say "Good-bye." DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING QUESTION; SIMPLY RECORD THE CORRESPONDING INFORMATION FOR

Q28.0 BEFORE MOVING ON TO NEXT INTERVIEW.

27.0 Gender of respondent?

45% Male 55% Female

May 2011

ITEM V A

farmland conservation final report - fresno cog...

Documents