Fresno City Council
August 24, 2023

KCCTOD Study
Public Draft | May 2023

Alternate formats of this document will be provided by the City upon request.

To request alternate formats contact:

Planning and Development Staff at (559) 621-8038
www.fresno.gov/KCCTOD

KINGS CANYON CORRIDOR

TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT

CONNECTIVITY STUDY
Public Draft | May 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 2
3 INTRODUCTION

1.1 1.2

1.3 1.4

BACKGROUND

PURPOSE

STUDY AREA

THE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE US

A VISION FOR THE CORRIDOR

2.1 2.2

2.3 ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY

A PATH FORWARD
ZINE VOL. I-IV

STORYMAP

3.1 3.2
WHAT IS A STORYMAP?

STORYMAP HIGHLIGHTS
2 3
4 7
1 10
12 14
8 18
18-19
16 4
5 A

TOD PROSPECTUS

4.1 4.2

4.3 INTRODUCTION

KEY INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES

STATION AREAS

IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX

APPENDICES
A.

B.

C.

D.

DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY STUDY

EXISTING CONDITIONS ATLAS

MOBILITY CONCEPTS

IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX
22 26
44 20
76 77
77 77
74 5.1

5.2 5.3

5.4 5.5

INTRODUCTION

FUNDING & FINANCING RESOURCES

EXISTING CITY RESOURCES

TAX-INCREMENT FINANCING

STATE & FEDERAL PROGRAMS
64 65
69 69
71 62

NAVIGATING
THIS
DOCUMENT:

TOOLKIT COMPONENTS
The Kings Canyon Corridor Transit-Oriented Development
Connectivity Study (Study) is meant to be used by anyone who has a role in transforming the Ventura / Kings Canyon Corridor (Corridor) and adjoining neighborhoods into a more pedestrianoriented, vibrant area. The toolkit can be used as a whole or in parts. The document is organized as follows:
describes the Study Area, background, and purpose of the Study. It also describes the opportunity that the Study presents.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1 describes the role of community engagement in the planning and implementation process, outlines recommended strategies, and highlights the magazines (zines) that were used throughout the Study to convey information and share the vision of community members in story form.

CHAPTER 2: A VISION FOR THE CORRIDOR
2 directs the reader to a web-based platform that showcases the information contained in this Study. The StoryMap combines maps and multimedia content to communicate the information in an interactive manner. This Chapter may be used as a standalone resource, in tandem with Chapter 4, and / or with the document as a whole.

CHAPTER 3: STORYMAP
describes the key investment opportunities and station area plans developed throughout the Study process. The development concepts presented in this chapter can be applied to other High-Quality Transit Corridors in the city.

Chapter 4 may be used as a standalone document to attract investment along the Corridor.

CHAPTER 4: TOD PROSPECTUS
includes a summary of potential funding and financing resources to promote TOD.

CHAPTER 5: IMPLEMENTATION
Appendix A: Development Financial Feasibility Analysis provides an analysis of the financial feasibility of the conceptual building prototypes described in Chapter 4.

Appendix B: Existing Conditions Atlas provides a summary of baseline information on existing conditions, opportunities, and constraints along the Corridor. To support the existing conditions analysis, a full market analysis and transit benefits assessment were performed and are appended to this report.

Appendix C: Mobility Concepts depicts grant-ready mobility concepts for the areas along the Corridor that were identified in the transit benefits assessment as most prime for enhancements.

Appendix D: Implementation Matrix provides additional details for the funding and financing tools described in Chapter 5 that have the potential to facilitate the implementation of transit-oriented development along the Corridor.

APPENDICES
3 4
5 A

1 This Chapter describes the Study Area, background, and purpose of the Study. It also describes the opportunity that the Study presents.

This Chapter is organized into the following sections:

1.1 Background

1.2 Purpose

1.3 Study Area

1.4 The Opportunity Before Us

INTRODUCTION
Introduction
1 Public Draft

1.1 Background
The Ventura / Kings Canyon Corridor (Corridor)
has long been a key East-West connector and
a critical component of the City of Fresno’s
(City) reinvestment strategy. The Corridor
is envisioned in the Fresno General Plan as
a mixed-use corridor with a “Main Street”
character with active storefronts, outdoor
seating, and pedestrian-oriented design at a
neighborhood scale. To implement that vision,
the City rezoned key corridors and updated
the Development Code. Since the adoption of
the General Plan in December 2014, the City
also launched its first bus route with bus rapid
transit features. Commonly referred to as the
“Q”, this route provides faster, more convenient,
and more reliable service than a traditional bus
line. Together, these past efforts established
a solid foundation for a multi-modal corridor
primed for new development.

However, while the “Q” (Route 1) provided the
“T” in Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)
envisioned in the General Plan, little to no
mixed-use projects were developed.

In order to catalyze TOD and capitalize upon
the City’s extensive investment in transit, the
City pursued Fresno County Measure C TOD
grant dollars. The City was awarded a grant
of $325,000 to evaluate and demonstrate the
viability of higher density, mixed-use, walkable
development along the Corridor, as well as
provide a framework to duplicate along other
major corridors.
2 Introduction

1.1| 1.2| 1.3| BACKGROUND PURPOSE 1.4| THE OPPORTUNITY

BEFORE US
STUDY
AREA
Public Draft

1.2 Purpose
This Study serves as an opportunity to
evaluate and demonstrate what mixed-use
development along the Corridor looks like
and how it works. This effort is grounded in
economic and market feasibility of different
development types and scenarios. Ultimately,
the Study serves as a toolkit that businesses,
landowners, residents, city leaders, and other
stakeholders can use as the city grows.

The three primary objectives of the Study are
to:

1. Identify which “Q” line stops along the
Corridor have the greatest near-term
market potential for compact, higherdensity mixed-use development.

2. Develop Station Area Plans for the top
two stations with the greatest near-term
market potential.

3. Develop a standardized TOD
implementation framework, or station
area “template”, that can be applied to
Corridor/Center Mixed-Used (CMX)
and Neighborhood Mixed-Use (NMX)
zoned properties along High-Frequency
Transit Corridors to maximize
connections and catalyze future infill
development around existing stations.
? WHAT IS TOD?
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) is a
type of development that promotes healthy
and active lifestyles by increasing housing
options, safety, walkability, and accessibility
near transit. These benefits lead to
increased economic opportunity and help
reduce environmental harm.
3 Introduction

1.1| 1.2| 1.3| BACKGROUND PURPOSE 1.4| THE OPPORTUNITY

BEFORE US
STUDY
AREA
Public Draft

1.3 Study Area
The Study Area, shown in Figure 1-1,
encompasses approximately 2,835 acres
across a 4.5-mile stretch of the Corridor
and is bounded by East Tulare Avenue to
the north, East Butler Avenue to the south,
South Argyle Avenue to the east, and State
Route 41 (Yosemite Freeway) to the west. The
Study Area includes portions of both Council
Districts 5 and 7, unincorporated land under the
jusrisdiction of the County of Fresno, and nine
station pairs of the “Q” (Route 1).

Housing approximately 36,000 residents,
the Study Area represents 7% of the city of
Fresno’s (city) population today. The population
is uniquely younger and more diverse than
the city as a whole. Seventy-two percent of
residents are Hispanic and approximately 12%
are Asian. The Asian population consists of
multiple Southeast Asian communities, with
a prominent Hmong population. Additionally,
a strong African American community exists
directly south of the Corridor. The average
household income of residents is $46,341. In
contrast, the average household income of
the city is $57,211. This distinction in financial
flexibility is further seen in renting patterns as
67% of residents are renters within the Study
Area compared to the whole of the city only
consisting of 49%.

Although the Corridor has experienced
underinvestment in infrastructure, the Corridor
continues to hold potential in developing
economically. The Corridor is a jobs-center,
accounting for 9% of the city’s jobs compared
with 7% of the city’s population. Health
Services is the dominant job sector within the
corridor, accounting for over 60% of all jobs.

It is followed by retail with 17% of the jobs.

Businesses are largely concentrated along
the Corridor and at key commercial nodes
and intersections in the area. Districts like the
Asian Village is the home of long spanning
Asian-owned businesses and organizations
that distinctly reflect and serve communities
that have called the area home. For more
information about the Study Area, see
Appendix B.
4 Introduction

1.1| 1.2| 1.3| BACKGROUND PURPOSE 1.4| THE OPPORTUNITY

BEFORE US
STUDY
AREA
Public Draft
Whites Bridge
Maple
Braw el y
Herndon
Bullard
Shaw
Clovis
Fow el r
Temperance
West
Palm
Clovis
Fowler
Temperance
De Wolf
Shields
McKinley
Belmont
Chestnut
Peach
American
Cedar
Grantland
Hayes
Elm
East
Marks
West
Walnut
Cornelia
North
California
Jensen
Ashlan
Grantland
Hayes
Cornelia
Brawley
Marks
Shaw
Bullard
Herndon
Nees
De Wolf Shields
McKinley
Belmont
California
Jensen
North
Kings Canyon
Ashlan
Peach
Behymer
Copper
Shepherd
Nees
B al ckstone
First
Cedar
Chestnut
Garfield
Bryan
Polk
Blythe
Valentine
Van Ness
Fruit
Maroa
Fresno
Millbrook
Maple
Willow
Dakota
Clinton
Olive
Gettysburg
Barstow
Sierra
Alluvial
Nielsen
Kearney
Muscat
Annadale
Church
Wil ol w
Minnewawa
Malaga
Orange
Bryan
Sunnys di e
A mr strong
Locan
Fig
Cherry
Hughes
Fruit
Polk
Va el nt ni e
Blythe
Alluvial
Sierra
Barstow
Perrin
Sunnyside
Armstrong
Locan
Clinton
Olive
Tulare
Butler
Church
Annadale
Dakota
Minnewawa
International
Teague
California
State
University
Fresno
Fresno
International
Airport
Fresno-Clovis Regional Wastewater
Reclamation Facility
Source: City of Fresno GIS Data
Prepared by the Planning and Development Department
UV41
UV99
K:\GIS 2023\KCTOD\maps\KCCTODmap_cityscale.mxd Legend
FAX Q Bus Route
UV180
UV168
E
UV180
0 1.5 3
Miles
Fresno Sphere of Influence
! ! !
!
! Fresno City Limits
KCCTOD Boundary
Figure 1-1: KCCTOD Study Area
5 Introduction

1.1| 1.2| 1.3| BACKGROUND PURPOSE 1.4| THE OPPORTUNITY

BEFORE US
STUDY
AREA
Public Draft
Source: City of Fresno GIS Data
Prepared by the Planning and Development Department
UV41
UV99
K:\GIS 2023\KCTOD\maps\KCCTODmap_HFC.mxd
Legend
Route 01/Q (10 minute frequency peak time / 15 minute frequency off-peak weekdays) Route 09 (15 minute frequency 6:00am to 6:00pm weekdays) Route 38 (15 minute frequency 6:00am to 6:00pm weekdays) Half-Mile Buffer
UV180
UV168
E
UV180
0 1.5 3
Miles
Fresno Sphere of Influence
! ! !
!
! Fresno City Limits
High-Quality Transit Corridors
Figure 1-2: High-Quality Transit Corridors
6 Introduction Public Draft

1.4 The Opportunity Before Us
The Study Area has been shaped by
transportation over the years. From serving
as a streetcar line to a highway to a highquality transit corridor, the Corridor has served as a local and regional destination
for over a century. The Corridor maintains
unique significance to many groups of
people from both near and far. The Fresno
Fairgrounds continues to attract visitors from
afar, celebrating Central Valley heritage with
events such as the Grape, Nut, and Tree Fruit
Expo; Big Fresno Fair; Fresno Home Show;
and Hmong New Year Cultural Celebration.

Its diverse demographics sets it apart from
other parts of Fresno, reflecting vibrantly
mixed backgrounds of Fresno residents. Areas
like the Asian Village are the home of long
spanning minority-owned businesses that
distinctly reflect and serve communities that
have called the area home. Representing a
resilient population, residents of the Study
Area are dedicated to celebrating and
improving their community for generations to
come.

This Study provides an opportunity for
businesses, landowners, residents, city
leaders, and other stakeholders to collaborate
on bringing the vision described in the
following chapter and the goals of the General
Plan to life. By working together to shift the
tide to promote TOD, the Corridor can serve
as a place where community members
can lead healthy and active lifestyles with
increased amenities, housing, and mobility
options. These benefits have the potential
to build community wealth, improve public
health, and support climate resilience.
7 Introduction

1.1| 1.2| 1.3| BACKGROUND PURPOSE 1.4| THE OPPORTUNITY

BEFORE US
STUDY
AREA
Public Draft

2 A VISION FOR

THE CORRIDOR
This Chapter describes the role of community engagement in the planning and implementation process, outlines recommended strategies, and highlights the magazines (zines) that were used throughout the Study to convey information and share the vision of community members in story form.

This Chapter is organized in the following sections:

2.1 Engaging the Community

2.2 A Path Forward

2.3 Zine Vol. I - IV
9 A Vision for the Corridor Public Draft

2.1 Engaging the Community
Community-envisioned strategies are powerful
tools for creating long-term, positive change. It
is critical to give community members a seat at
the table in the planning and implementation
process to help ensure that new investment
also benefits low-income communities and
Black, Indigenous, and People of Color
(BIPOC). Without this input, new development
can lead to both investment-induced (triggered
by the economic impacts of new investment)
and indirect displacement (triggered by sociocultural shifts in a community) of long-time residents and business owners.

To ensure that community voice was not only
heard, but also incorporated in the Study,
a series of workshops, pop-up events, and
interviews were held. Staff partnered with the
Mayor’s Office of Community Affairs (OCA)
and Community-Based Organizations (CBOs)
to ensure attendees reflected the makeup of
the Study Area. Additionally, by working with
the OCA and CBOs, staff was able to lower
the barrier to entry in the planning process.

Study materials were translated into Spanish,
Hmong, and Punjabi, and planning jargon
was demystified. See Section 2.3. for more
information.

While centering community wisdom and
community voice is vital, it was also important
to ground truth investment opportunities
with the development community. For that
reason, two developer forums and a series of
interviews with members of the development
community were held.
10 A Vision for the Corridor

2.1| 2.2| 2.3| A PATH FORWARD ZINE VOL. I-IV ENGAGING THECOMMUNITY Public Draft
Community Engagement
2,500
Reached on
Social Media
830
Outreach
Event Attendees
2 Developers
Forum
4 Workshops
2 Mobile
Workshops
7 Presentations Pop-up Events
20 3
Surveys
253
Survey
Respondents
11 A Vision for the Corridor Public Draft

2.2 A Path Forward
Going forward, the City has a powerful
opportunity to center equity outcomes and
build community wealth for low-income
communities and BIPOC while also promoting
TOD. This section outlines the strategies that
can be implemented going forward to bring
about TOD in a way that is inclusive and
responsive to the needs and aspirations of
community members.

Strategy 1 - Complete Streets:

Design and construct streets that are safe
and accessible for pedestrians, bicyclists,
and transit users, including amenities such
as sidewalks, bike lanes, and street furniture.

Strategy 2 - Youth Access to Economic
Opportunities:

Developers and the City should work to
ensure youth have access to economic
opportunities associated with new TOD
projects. This may include creating
programs that provide job training or
entrepreneurship opportunities for youth.

Strategy 3 - Mixed-Income Housing:

Encourage the development of mixedincome housing near transit stations to promote social equity and diversity in
neighborhoods.

Strategy 4 - Support Local Businesses:

Developers should prioritize working with
existing local businesses and encourage
new businesses that reflect the community’s
cultural identity in new development. This
can include providing affordable lease
rates, offering business support services,
or facilitating connections between local
entrepreneurs and investors.

Strategy 5 - Provide Affordable Housing
Options:

Gentrification can displace long-time
residents and erode a community’s cultural
fabric. To preserve the culture of a place,
developers should provide affordable
housing options within new developments.

This can include setting aside a portion
of units as affordable housing, partnering
with community organizations to provide
rental assistance, and / or offering first-time
homebuyer assistance programs.

Strategy 6 - Anti-Displacement
Measures:

Implement policies and strategies to
prevent displacement of existing residents
and businesses. This may include tenant
protection programs and economic
development opportunities that benefit lowincome communities and BIPOC.

Strategy 7 - Design for Walkable
Communities:

Developers should prioritize pedestrianfriendly streetscapes, public gathering spaces, and other amenities that encourage
social interaction and community
engagement. This can include public plazas,
community gardens, or outdoor seating
areas that encourage people to connect
with each other.
12 A Vision for the Corridor

2.1| 2.2| 2.3| A PATH FORWARD ZINE VOL. I-IV ENGAGING THECOMMUNITY Public Draft
Strategy 8 - Community Engagement:

Engaging with local communities is a crucial
step in preserving the culture of a place.

Developers should work closely with residents,
community groups, and cultural organizations
to understand the local history and cultural
values and incorporate these into the design
and programming of new TOD projects. This can
include public art installations, cultural events, or
other activities that celebrate the community’s
unique identity.

Strategy 9 - Adaptive Reuse:

Encourage the adaptive reuse of existing
buildings for TOD projects to promote
repurposing vacant and underutilized sites and
buildings.

Strategy 10 - Micro-Mobility:

Promote micro-mobility programs and
infrastructure to enhance first- and last-mile
connections.

Strategy 11 - Public/Private Partnerships:

Establish partnerships between public agencies
and private developers to create mixed-use,
pedestrian-friendly developments around transit
stations. This should include the formation of a
working resource group.

Strategy 12 – Cultural District:

Encourage the establishment of the Corridor as
a Cultural District to highlight and protect the
local socio-economic diversity, cultural diversity,
and ethnic diversity.
“We envision a safe, inclusive,
and family-oriented hub that
promotes community and wellbeing. Our goal is to include small enterprises and business
communities, youth, and
families of all ethnicities and
socioeconomic backgrounds to
Vision thrive in our TOD!”
Statement
13 A Vision for the Corridor Public Draft

KINGS CANYON CORRIDOR TRANSIT-ORIENTED

DEVELOPMENT CONNECTIVITY STUDY

ESTUDIO DE CONNECTIVIDAD PARA EL DESARROLLO
ORIENTADO AL TRÁNSITO EN EL CORREDOR KINGS CANYON

KEV KAWM UAS CUAM TXHUAM RAU KEV TSIM KHO TXOJ

KEV TSEB THAUJ MUS LOS NTAWM KINGS CANYON
ਕਿੰਗਜ਼ ਕੈਨਿਯਨ ਕੋਰੀਡੋਰ ਟਰਾਂਜ਼ਿਟ-ਓਰੀਐਂਟਡ ਡਿਵੈਲਪਮੈਂਟ ਕਨੈਕਟੀਵਿਟੀ ਸਟੱਡੀ ZINE
VOL. 1

2.3 Zine Vol. I - IV
In an effort to lower the barrier to entry in the
planning process and demystify planning jargon,
staff drafted four magazines (zine). Each zine
was hand drawn and translated into Spanish,
Hmong, and Punjabi.

The intent of the first zine was to disseminate
information about the Study. The zine was
mailed out to all community members within
the Study Area and provided information about
the Study, upcoming workshops, and defined
the term transit-oriented development (TOD). In
addition to defining the term, the zine described
the benefits associated with TOD.

The intent of the second zine was to actively
work to demystify planning jargon through
storytelling and art. Zine Volume II introduced
the main character, Transit-Oriented
Development, also known as Tod, who told
the story of what TOD looks like and invited
community members to an upcoming workshop
to build their own vision for TOD in their
neighborhood.

The third zine employed similar methods as Zine
Volume II, but also highlighted the elements of
TOD that community members liked and shows
what that could look like by displaying the
development concepts and station area plans
that were drafted for the Study.

The final zine, Zine Volume IV, was drafted by
community members and tells the story of
the community’s vision for the Corridor. The
story also alludes to the strategies that will be
incorporated in the final Study to help ensure
that new investment also benefits low-income
and BIPOC communities.

Full copies of Zine Volumes I-IVl can be viewed
by clicking on the following links or scanning the
QR codes.

Zine Volume I
https://tinyurl.com/KCCTOD-Volume-1
14 A Vision for the Corridor

2.1| 2.2| 2.3| A PATH FORWARD ZINE VOL. I-IV ENGAGING THECOMMUNITY Public Draft

KINGS CANYON CORRIDOR TRANSIT-ORIENTED

DEVELOPMENT CONNECTIVITY STUDY

ESTUDIO DE CONNECTIVIDAD PARA EL DESARROLLO
ORIENTADO AL TRÁNSITO EN EL CORREDOR KINGS CANYON

KEV SOJ NTSUAM TXOG QHOV TSIM KHO NTU KEV

NTAWM KINGS CANYON
ਕਿੰਗਜ਼ ਕੈਨਿਯਨ ਕੋਰੀਡੋਰ ਟਰਾਂਜ਼ਿਟ-ਓਰੀਐਂਟਡ ਡਿਵੈਲਪਮੈਂਟ ਕਨੈਕਟੀਵਿਟੀ ਸਟੱਡੀ VOL.

II
c
ਕਿੰਗਜ਼ ਕੈਨਿਯਨ ਕੋਰੀਡੋਰ ਟਰਾਂਜ਼ਿਟ-ਓਰੀਐਂਟਡ ਡਿਵੈਲਪਮੈਂਟ
ਕਨੈਕਟੀਵਿਟੀ ਸਟੱਡੀ

KINGS CANYON CORRIDOR TRANSIT-ORIENTED

DEVELOPMENT CONNECTIVITY STUDY

ESTUDIO DE CONNECTIVIDAD PARA EL
DESARROLLO ORIENTADO AL TRÁNSITO EN EL

CORREDOR KINGS CANYON

KEV SOJ NTSUAM TXOG QHOV TSIM KHO NTU

KEV NTAWM KINGS CANYON
k
c c t o d
VOL. III
Kings Canyon Corridor
Transit-Oriented Development Connectivity Study
Estudio de Connectividad
para el Desarrollo Orientado al Transito en el Corredor Kings Canyon Kev Soj Ntsuam
Txog Qhov Tsim Kho
Ntu kev Ntwam
Kings Canyon
illustrated by:

Marisela Martinez & Kara Hammerschmidt
ਕਿੰਗਜ਼ ਕੈਨਿਯਨ ਕੋਰੀਡੋਰ ਟਰਾਂਜ਼ਿਟਓਰੀਐਂਟਡ ਡਿਵੈਲਪਮੈਂਟ ਕਨੈਕਟੀਵਿਟੀ ਸਟੱਡੀ
ZINE VOL. IV
Zine Volume II
Zine Volume III
Zine Volume IV
https://tinyurl.com/KCCTOD-Volume-2
https://tinyurl.com/KCCTOD-Volume-3
https://tinyurl.com/KCCTOD-Volume-4
15 A Vision for the Corridor Public Draft

3 STORYMAP
This Chapter directs the reader to a web-based platform that showcases the information contained in this Study. The StoryMap combines maps and multimedia content to communicate the information in an interactive manner. This Chapter may be used as a standalone resource, in tandem with Chapter 4, and / or with the document as a whole.

This Chapter is organized into the following sections:

3.1 What is a StoryMap?

3.2 StoryMap Highlights
17 StoryMap Public Draft

3.1 What is a StoryMap?
To raise awareness about the Study, an ArcGIS
StoryMap was created. ArcGIS StoryMaps is
a digital storytelling platform that uses text,
maps, and other multimedia content to create
a stronger sense of place, illustrate spatial
relationships, and provide an opportunity to
interact with data. The KCCTOD StoryMap can
be accessed by visiting the following website
or scanning the QR code.

3.2 StoryMap Highlights
https://tinyurl.com/TOD-StoryMap
18 StoryMap

3.1| 3.2| STORYMAPHIGHLIGHTS

WHAT IS A
STORYMAP?
Public Draft
19 StoryMap

3.1| 3.2| STORYMAPHIGHLIGHTS

WHAT IS A
STORYMAP?
Public Draft

TOD Prospectus
421

TOD PROSPECTUS
This Chapter describes the key investment opportunities and station area plans developed throughout the Study process. The development concepts presented in this chapter can be applied to other High-Quality Transit Corridors in the City. Chapter 4 may also be used as a standalone document to attract investment along the Corridor.

This Chapter is organized into the following sections:

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Key Investment Opportunities

4.3 Station Areas
Public Draft
22 TOD Prospectus
Study Objectives
Identify which “Q” line stops along the Corridor have the greatest near-term market potential for compact, higher-density mixed-use development.

Develop Station Area Plans for the top two stations with the greatest near-term market potential.

Develop a standardized TOD implementation framework, or station area “template”, that can be applied to Corridor/Center Mixed-Used (CMX) and Neighborhood Mixed-Use (NMX) zoned properties along HighQuality Transit Corridors to maximize connections and catalyze future infill development around existing transit stations.
1 2
3 4.1| 4.2| 4.3| INTRODUCTION KEY INVESTMENT

OPPORTUNITIES

STATION
AREAS
Public Draft
Maple
Braw el y
Clovis
Fowler
Temperance
De Wolf
Chestnut
Peach
American
Cedar
Elm
East
Marks
West
Walnut
Cornelia
North
California
Jensen
Shields
McKinley
Belmont
California
Jensen
North
Kings Canyon
Kearney
Muscat
Annadale
Church
Wil ol w
Minnewawa
Malaga
Orange
Sunnys di e
A mr strong
Locan
FigCherry
Hughes
Fruit
Polk
Va el nt ni e
Blythe
Clinton
Olive
Tulare
Butler
Church
Annadale
Dakota
Fresno
International
Airport
o-Clovis Regional Wastewater
Reclamation Facility
Source: City of Fresno GIS Data
Prepared by the Planning and Development Department
UV41
UV99
K:\GIS 2023\KCTOD\maps\KCCTODmap_cityscale2.mxd Legend
FAX Q Bus Route
UV180
UV168
UV180
0 1 2
Miles
Fresno Sphere of Influence
! ! !
!
! Fresno City Limits
KCCTOD Boundary
Maple
Braw el y
Clovis
Fowler
Temperance
De Wolf
Chestnut
Peach
American
Cedar
Elm
East
Marks
West
Walnut
Cornelia
North
California
Jensen
Shields
McKinley
Belmont
California
Jensen
North
Kings Canyon
Kearney
Muscat
Annadale
Church
Wil ol w
Minnewawa
Malaga
Orange
Sunnys di e
A mr strong
Locan
FigCherry
Hughes
Fruit
Polk
Va el nt ni e
Blythe
Clinton
Olive
Tulare
Butler
Church
Annadale
Dakota
Fresno
International
Airport
resno-Clovis Regional Wastewater
Reclamation Facility
Source: City of Fresno GIS Data
Prepared by the Planning and Development Department
UV41
UV99
K:\GIS 2023\KCTOD\maps\KCCTODmap_cityscale2.mxd Legend
FAX Q Bus Route
UV180
UV168
UV180
0 1 2
Miles
Fresno Sphere of Influence
! ! !
!
! Fresno City Limits
KCCTOD Boundary
TOD Prospectus
23 TOD & Infill
Study Area
Transit-Oriented Development
(TOD) is a type of development that
promotes healthy and active lifestyles
by increasing housing options,
safety, walkability, and accessibility
near transit. These benefits lead to
increased economic opportunity and
help reduce environmental harm.

Public Draft
24 TOD Prospectus

DEMOGRAPHICS

RENTER OWNER
Data Source: Esri



































































































  
­
 
€

‚













ƒ

ƒ
















„



KINGS CANYON FRESNO CALIFORNIA
Data Source: Esri
The Study Area has a population of approximately 36,000 residents. Its population represents 7% of the city of Fresno’s population. While the city’s population has been growing at a steady pace, population has declined along the Corridor and is anticipated to have only a modest growth in the coming years (with an additional 249 residents expected by year 2026). Residents in the area are younger and more diverse than the city as a whole. Seventy-two percent of residents are Hispanic and almost 12% Asian, with a strong Hmong community evident in businesses and organizations in the area. A strong African American community exists within the Central Southeast area of the city and directly south of the Corridor. The population is made up of front-line workers with an average household income of $46,341 per year. In contrast to the entire city of Fresno, over two-thirds of the households in the Corridor are renters.
36,000

RESIDENTS
4,691

M U LT I - FA M I LY
UNITS
21,116

E X I S T I N G
JOBS
Ethnic & Racial Distribution

11.5%
72%

51.2%
40% 37.3%

46.8%
54%

6.9% 7.7% 5.9%

13.5% 15.3%



































































































  
­
 
€

‚













ƒ

ƒ
















„



4.1| 4.2| 4.3| INTRODUCTION KEY INVESTMENT

OPPORTUNITIES

STATION
AREAS
Public Draft

MARKET ANALYSIS
Based on the employment projections prepared by Applied Development Economics for Fresno’s Sphere of Influence, Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) prepared employment projections for the Corridor, which are provided in a Summary of Real Estate Conditions and Opportunities Report (See Appendix A for more details). As shown in the KMA report, it is estimated that an additional 2,791 new jobs will be created within the Corridor by 2035. Health services is the leading sector with an additional 1,595 new jobs, followed by retail trade with 530 new jobs, and transportation/logistics with 127 new jobs. Based on current industry employment densities, this job growth would translate into a need for approximately 550,000 square feet of new non-residential development, led by 168,000 square feet of new space for health services, 167,300 square feet of new retail space, and 80,300 square feet of logistics space. This, coupled with a high demand for affordable housing and several vacant and underutilized properties in the area indicates that development potential does exist along the Corridor.

MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL
Based on the KMA Report, it is estimated that there is modest opportunity for new residential development, totaling approximately 226 units based on projected population growth. This demand estimate is likely to be understated because it does not account for the consideration that the housing stock is old and, in some cases, in need of replacement. Moreover, given the income levels of residents, there is a tremendous need for new affordable housing to serve existing residents. The highest rental rates on the corridor approximate $940 per month, or $1.11 per square foot. These rates are insufficient to support the cost of constructing new market rate units, but they do add value for new affordable developments. The market rate townhomes that are currently under construction are an encouraging sign for the potential to attract new market rate units to the corridor.

HEALTH SERVICES
The Corridor has a concentration of health services and this sector is expected to continue to dominate employment within the corridor. There is an opportunity to continue to build this sector with a projected need for 168,000 square feet of new space by 2035. This sector is also well-suited to a robust public transit system.

RETAIL
Retail space in the Corridor serves a much larger market than the local residents within the Study Area. However, given the critical mass of retail that is within the Corridor, there are opportunities for new development. The employment growth projections indicate a need for over 165,000 square feet of new retail space through 2035. The leakage analysis prepared by KMA indicates opportunities for apparel stores, home furnishings, and appliances.

Given recent trends, it is also likely that there are opportunities for incubator restaurant space to support the development of new local, culturally-reflective restaurants.

LOGISTICS
Logistics is a growing market segment throughout California and it represents an opportunity in the area to accommodate the need for distribution space that is close to city centers. A 183,091 square-foot last-mile facility was recently built approximately 0.8-miles to the north of the Study Area.

TOD Prospectus
25 168,000
SQ. FT. OF

N E W H E A LT H

SERVICES
SPACE
226

N E W U N I T S

TO S U P P O R T

P R OJ E C T E D

P O P U L AT I O N
GROWTH
2,791

NEW JOBS
80,300
S Q. F T. O F

LOGISTICS SPACE
165,000
SQ. FT. OF

RETAIL SPACE
Public Draft

VENTURA AVE
8th AVECEDAR AVE
Potential Development Sites Along the Corridor
(1) INFILL (2) INFILL - MIXED USE (3) WALK-UP APARTMENTS The following represent common building prototypes that either exist in the Cedar and Chestnut/Willow station areas or may be developed within the range of housing densities currently allowed by the zoning for the Study Area.

Development Prototypes
26 TOD Prospectus

4.1| 4.2| 4.3| INTRODUCTION KEY INVESTMENT

OPPORTUNITIES

STATION
AREAS
Public Draft

E KINGS CANYON RD

S MAPLE AVECHESTNUT AVE
(4) SENIOR COTTAGES (5) TOWNHOMES (6) ADAPTIVE REUSE
TOD Prospectus
27 Public Draft
The Corridor Infill prototype represents the potential for a standalone, single-story, commercial office or retail building with an active frontage on the corridor and surface parking in the rear of the site and off the alley. This prototype may accommodate health services, retail, or office uses in a costeffective, wood-frame construction and would likely require lot assembly. A portion of the front facade may set back and include a widened sidewalk and entry plaza along Ventura and Kings Canyon. Financial analysis of this prototype indicates a total estimated development cost of approx. $2.6m and return on investment of 6.9% for retail and a cost of $4.2m and return of 6.5% for medical office, with target annual rents of $18 per net square foot for retail and $32.5 per net square foot for medical office.

Conceptual Plan
Potential Site
Prototype 1 - Corridor Infill
11,000 sf
of building area
7,600 sf
of landscape/open space
27 parking stalls
Conceptual Rendering of Prototype
28 TOD Prospectus

4.1| 4.2| 4.3| INTRODUCTION KEY INVESTMENT

OPPORTUNITIES

STATION
AREAS
Public Draft
Development Program Prototype 1A -
Infill Retail
Prototype 1B - Infill Medical Office
Lot Size 30,000 sf 30,000 sf
Number of Units -- --
Gross Residential Area -- --
Net Residential Area -- --
Average Unit Size -- --
Gross Commercial Area 11,000 sf 11,000 sf
Common Area/Amenity 176 sf --
Gross Building Area (ex. Pkg.) 11,000 sf 11,000 sf
Net Residential & Commercial 11,000 sf 11,000 sf
Parking 11,400 sf 11,400 sf
Parking Spaces 27 spaces 27 spaces
Landscaped Areas 7,600 sf 7,600 sf
Revenue Per SF Per Unit Total Per SF Per Unit Total
Residential Rent (Sales Rev.) -- -- -- -- -- --
Laundry, etc. -- -- -- -- -- --
Commercial Inc. (per net com) $18.00 -- $198,000 $32.50 -- $357,500 Less Vacancy (5%) ($0.90) -- ($9,900) ($1.63) -- ($17,875) Gross Effective Income $17.10 -- $188,100 $30.88 -- $339,625 Less Operating (Sales) Exp. ($0.90) -- ($9,900) ($6.00) -- ($66,000) Net Annual Operating Income $16.20 -- $178,200 $24.88 -- $273,625 Development Costs Per SF Per Unit Total Per SF Per Unit Total Shell Costs $130 -- $1,431,917 $255 -- $2,800,252
Land ($10 per sf of land area) $27 -- $300,000 $27 -- $300,000 Site Improvements $27 -- $300,000 $27 -- $300,000
TI Allowance, commercial $10 -- $110,000 $10 -- $110,000 Permits & Fees $10 -- $106,918 $9 -- $103,325
Contingency (5% of direct costs) $8 -- $86,596 $14 -- $155,013 Other Soft Costs $15 -- $164,670 $29 -- $322,029
Financing $7 -- $79,600 $12 -- $130,200
Return on Cost Per SF Per Unit 6.9% Per SF Per Unit 6.5% Target Return on Cost -- -- 6.5% -- -- 6.5%
Supported Investment $249 -- $2,741,538 $383 -- $4,209,615 Estimated Development Cost $235 -- $2,579,601 $384 -- $4,220,618 Gap to Achieve Target Return $0 -- $0 $1 -- $11,003
TOD Prospectus
29 Public Draft
The Corridor Infill, Mixed-Use prototype illustrates
the potential for mixed-use with three floors of
wood-framed residential above a concrete retail
podium and surface / tuck-under parking. An active
ground floor may accommodate retail, office, food
and beverage uses, and common area amenities to
service the residential use above. A portion of the
front facade may set back and include a widened
sidewalk and entry plaza along the Corridor. Financial
analysis of this prototype indicates a total estimated
development cost of approx. $15.3m and return on
investment of 6.5% with average rents adjusted
to $2,130 per month for the residential to achieve
feasibility thresholds. As an alternative to increasing rents, affordable housing may be provided through
the use of subsidies to finance the project and keep
rents low. See prototype 2B.

Potential Site
Conceptual Plan - First Floor
Prototype 2A - Corridor Infill, Mixed-Use
55,085 sf
of residential space
13,070 sf
of landscape/open space
58 parking stalls
Conceptual Plan - Second-Fourth Floors
Conceptual Rendering of Prototype
30 TOD Prospectus

4.1| 4.2| 4.3| INTRODUCTION KEY INVESTMENT

OPPORTUNITIES

STATION
AREAS
Public Draft
Development Program -
Market Rate (2A)
Prototype 2 - Mixed-use
Residential - Market Rate (2A)
Lot Size 49,707 sf
Number of Units 54 units
Gross Residential Area 55,085 sf
Net Residential Area 38,880 sf
Average Unit Size 720 sf
Gross Commercial Area 5,250 sf
Common Area/Amenity 7,350 sf
Gross Building Area (ex. Pkg.) 67,685 sf
Net Residential & Commercial 44,130 sf
Parking 22,600 sf
Parking Spaces 58 spaces
Landscaped Areas 13,070 sf
Revenue Per SF Per Unit Total
Residential Rent (Sales Rev.) $35.50 $25,560 $1,380,240 Laundry, etc. $0.25 $180 $9,720
Commercial Inc. (per net com) $18.00 $1,750 $94,500
Less Vacancy (5%) ($1.68) ($1,375) ($74,223)
Gross Effective Income $31.96 $26,116 $1,410,237
Less Operating (Sales) Exp. ($9.49) ($7,756) ($418,797) Net Annual Operating Income $22.47 $18,360 $991,440
Development Costs Per SF Per Unit Total
Shell Costs $261 $213,357 $11,521,279
Land ($10 per sf of land area) $11 $9,205 $497,070
Site Improvements $11 $9,205 $497,070
TI Allowance, commercial $1 $972 $52,500
Permits & Fees $7 $5,484 $296,150
Contingency (5% of direct costs) $14 $11,128 $600,917
Other Soft Costs $30 $24,536 $1,324,947
Financing $11 $8,700 $469,800
Return on Cost Per SF Per Unit 6.5%
Target Return on Cost N/A N/A 6.5%
Supported Investment $346 N/A $15,252,923
Estimated Development Cost $346 N/A $15,259,733
Gap to Achieve Target Return $0 $0 $6,810
TOD Prospectus
31 Public Draft
Development Program -
Affordable (2B)
Prototype 2 - Mixed-use
Residential - Affordable (2B)
Lot Size 49,707 sf
Number of Units 54 units
Gross Residential Area 55,085 sf
Net Residential Area 38,880 sf
Average Unit Size 720 sf
Gross Commercial Area 5,250 sf
Common Area/Amenity 7,350 sf
Gross Building Area (ex. Pkg.) 67,685 sf
Net Residential & Commercial 44,130 sf
Parking 22,600 sf
Parking Spaces 58 spaces
Landscaped Areas 13,070 sf
Prototype 2B is similar to Prototype 2A in its program, design, and potential locations. However, this prototype assumes a 100% affordable project. Onehundred percent affordable rental projects are typically built by non-profit developers and are funded with multiple layers of sources including lowincome housing tax credits (LIHTC), State of California subsidy sources (such as the Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities [AHSC] program), and local subsidy sources (such as available low- and moderate-income housing funds and vouchers from the Housing Authority). These projects do not generate a profit and feasibility is measured by securing funding to cover 100% of project development costs and rental income sufficient to fund operating debt service costs. Financial analysis of this prototype indicates that the project would need a local subsidy ranging from $22,000 to $78,000 per unit, depending on the amount of State funding that could be obtained.

Consistent with the requirements of the funding sources, the rents are assumed to be affordable to Very Low-Income households, earning no more than 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Monthly rents are estimated at $658 for a one-bedroom unit and $778 for a two-bedroom unit.

Prototype 2B - Corridor Infill, Mixed-Use
32 TOD Prospectus

4.1| 4.2| 4.3| INTRODUCTION KEY INVESTMENT

OPPORTUNITIES

STATION
AREAS
Public Draft
Revenue Per SF Per Unit Total
Residential Rent (Sales Rev.) $12.06 $8,685 $469,000
Laundry, etc. $0.17 $120 $6,500
Commercial Inc. (per net com) $18.00 $1,750 $94,500
Less Vacancy (5%) ($0.66) ($537) ($29,000)
Gross Effective Income $12.26 $10,019 $541,000
Less Operating (Sales) Exp. ($6.63) ($5,421) ($292,725) Net Annual Operating Income $5.63 $4,598 $248,275
Development Costs Per SF Per Unit Total
Shell Costs $284 $231,889 $12,522,000
Land ($10 per sf of land area) $11 $9,205 $497,070
Site Improvements $11 $9,205 $497,070
TI Allowance, commercial $1 $972 $52,500
Prevailing Wages $44 $36,315 $1,961,000
Permits & Fees $7 $5,484 $296,150
Contingency (5% of direct costs) $17 $13,926 $752,000
Developer Fee $63 $51,352 $2,773,000
Other Soft Costs $37 $30,022 $1,621,210
Financing $44 $35,796 $1,933,000
Total Development Costs $519 $424,000 $22,905,000
Sources of Funds - With
Additional State Funding
Per SF Per Unit Total
Supportable Permanent Loan $72 $58,537 $3,161,000
Tax Credit Equity Investment $341 $278,630 $15,046,000
Other State Funding Sources $73 $60,000 $3,240,000
Deffered Developer Fee $6 $5,056 $273,000
Total Sources of Funds $492 $402,222 $21,720,000
(Less) Total Development Costs ($519) ($424,000) ($22,905,000) Subsidy Gap (Costs - Sources) ($27) ($22,000) ($1,184,000) Sources of Funds - No
Additional State Funding
Per SF Per Unit Total
Supportable Permanent Loan $76 $62,037 $3,350,000
Tax Credit Equity Investment $341 $278,630 $15,046,000
Other State Funding Sources $0 $0 $0
Deffered Developer Fee $6 $5,056 $273,000
Total Sources of Funds $423 $345,722 $18,669,000
(Less) Total Development Costs ($519) ($424,000) ($22,908,000) Subsidy Gap (Costs - Sources) ($96) ($78,000) ($4,238,000) TOD Prospectus
33 Public Draft
The Walk-Up Apartments prototype illustrates the potential for 2-story walk-up apartments in conventional woodframe construction and with surface parking on a larger 3 to 5 acre lot. An active corner building facing the Corridor may accommodate retail, office, food and beverage uses, and common area amenities to service the residents. The center of the site may include a community clubhouse/ pool with pathway connections linking the site back to the Corridor. This prototype assumes larger units, including two and three-bedroom apartments that accommodate families. Financial analysis of this prototype indicates a total estimated development cost of approx. $19.9m and return on investment of 6.5% with rents adjusted to $1,742 per month to achieve feasibility thresholds. As an alternative to increasing rents, affordable housing may be provided through the use of subsidies to finance the project and keep rents low. See Prototype 3B.

Conceptual Plan Potential Site
Conceptual Rendering of Prototype
Prototype 3A - Walk-Up Apartments
93,865 sf
of residential space
45,088 sf
of landscape/public open space
92 parking stalls
34 TOD Prospectus

4.1| 4.2| 4.3| INTRODUCTION KEY INVESTMENT

OPPORTUNITIES

STATION
AREAS
Public Draft
Development Program -
Market Rate (3A)
Prototype 3 - 2-Story
Walk-Up Apartments - Market Rate (3A)
Lot Size 137,910 sf
Number of Units 92 units
Gross Residential Area 93,865 sf
Net Residential Area 76,200 sf
Average Unit Size 828 sf
Gross Commercial Area 2,110 sf
Common Area/Amenity 2,630 sf
Gross Building Area (ex. Pkg.) 98,605 sf
Net Residential & Commercial 78,310 sf
Parking 41,150 sf
Parking Spaces 92 spaces
Landscaped Areas 45,088 sf
Revenue Per SF Per Unit Total
Residential Rent (Sales Rev.) $25.25 $20,914 $1,924,050 Laundry, etc. $0.22 $180 $16,560
Commercial Inc. (per net com) $18.00 $413 $37,980
Less Vacancy (5%) ($1.26) ($1,075) ($98,930)
Gross Effective Income $24.00 $20,431 $1,879,661
Less Operating (Sales) Exp. ($7.40) ($6,295) ($579,114) Net Annual Operating Income $16.61 $14,136 $1,300,547
Development Costs Per SF Per Unit Total
Shell Costs $175 $148,711 $13,681,398
Land ($10 per sf of land area) $18 $14,990 $1,379,100
Site Improvements $18 $14,990 $1,379,100
TI Allowance, commercial $0 $229 $21,100
Permits & Fees $6 $5,060 $465,561
Contingency (5% of direct costs) $10 $8,185 $753,025
Other Soft Costs $20 $17,102 $1,573,361
Financing $9 $6,700 $616,400
Total Development Costs (excl. land) $254 $215,968 $19,869,044 Return on Cost Per SF Per Unit 6.5%
Target Return on Cost N/A N/A 6.5%
Supported Investment $256 N/A $20,008,408
Estimated Development Cost $254 N/A $19,869,044
Gap to Achieve Target Return $0 $0 $0
TOD Prospectus
35 Public Draft
Development Program -
Affordable (3B)
Prototype 3 - 2-Story
Walk-Up Apartments - Affordable (3B)
Lot Size 137,910 sf
Number of Units 92 units
Gross Residential Area 93,865 sf
Net Residential Area 76,200 sf
Average Unit Size 828 sf
Gross Commercial Area 2,110 sf
Common Area/Amenity 2,630 sf
Gross Building Area (ex. Pkg.) 98,605 sf
Net Residential & Commercial 78,310 sf
Parking 41,150 sf
Parking Spaces 92 spaces
Landscaped Areas 45,088 sf
Prototype 3B is similar to Prototype 3A in its program, design, and potential locations. However, this prototype assumes a 100% affordable project. Onehundred percent affordable rental projects are typically built by non-profit developers and are funded with multiple layers of sources including LIHTC, State of California subsidy sources (such as the AHSC program), and local subsidy sources (such as available low and moderate-income housing funds and vouchers from the Housing Authority). These projects do not generate a profit and feasibility is measured by securing funding to cover 100% of project development costs and rental income sufficient to fund operating debt service costs. Financial analysis of this prototype indicates that the project would need a local subsidy ranging from $15,000 to $58,000 per unit, depending on the amount of State funding that could be obtained. Consistent with the requirements of the funding sources, the rents are assumed to be affordable to Very Low-Income households, earning no more than 50% of the AMI.

Monthly rents are estimated at $658 for a one-bedroom unit and $778 for a two-bedroom unit.

Prototype 3B - Walk-Up Apartments
36 TOD Prospectus

4.1| 4.2| 4.3| INTRODUCTION KEY INVESTMENT

OPPORTUNITIES

STATION
AREAS
Public Draft
Revenue Per SF Per Unit Total
Residential Rent (Sales Rev.) $10.31 $8,543 $786,000
Laundry, etc. $0.14 $120 $11,000
Commercial Inc. (per net com) $18.00 $413 $37,980
Less Vacancy (5%) ($0.54) ($457) ($42,000)
Gross Effective Income $10.13 $8,619 $792,980
Less Operating (Sales) Exp. ($6.32) ($5,379) ($494.899) Net Annual Operating Income $3.81 $3,240 $298,081
Development Costs Per SF Per Unit Total
Shell Costs $189 $148,711 $13,681,398
Land ($10 per sf of land area) $18 $14,990 $1,379,100
Site Improvements $18 $14,990 $1,379,100
TI Allowance, commercial $0 $229 $21,100
Prevailing Wages $31 $26,402 $2,429,000
Permits & Fees $6 $5,060 $465,561
Contingency (5% of direct costs) $12 $10,120 $931,000
Developer Fee $44 $37,587 $3,458,000
Other Soft Costs $27 $22,613 $2,080,389
Financing $32 $27,326 $2,514,000
Total Development Costs $376 $320,000 $29,448,000
Sources of Funds - With
Additional State Funding
Per SF Per Unit Total
Supportable Permanent Loan $48 $41,228 $3,793,000
Tax Credit Equity Investment $245 $208,380 $19,171,000
Other State Funding Sources $53 $45,000 $4,140,000
Deffered Developer Fee $12 $10,413 $958,000
Total Sources of Funds $358 $305,022 $28,062,000
(Less) Total Development Costs ($376) ($320,087) ($29,448,000) Subsidy Gap (Costs - Sources) ($18) ($15,000) ($1,385,000) Sources of Funds - No
Additional State Funding
Per SF Per Unit Total
Supportable Permanent Loan $51 $43,717 $4,022,000
Tax Credit Equity Investment $245 $208,380 $19,171,000
Other State Funding Sources $0 $0 $0
Deffered Developer Fee $12 $10,413 $958,000
Total Sources of Funds $308 $262,511 $24,151,000
(Less) Total Development Costs ($376) ($320,130) ($29,452,000) Subsidy Gap (Costs - Sources) ($68) ($58,000) ($5,300,000) TOD Prospectus
37 Public Draft
Prototype 4 - Senior Cottages
62,460 sf
of residential space
129,170 sf
of landscape/open space
84 parking stalls
The Senior Cottages prototype illustrates
the potential for senior housing to address
a growing demand in the area. Buildings
are formatted in one-story, five- and six-plex
walk-up cottages with surface parking and
on a lot larger than 5 acres. The community
provides a centralized amenity area and
cottages may be arranged around shared
courtyards. A central paseo or green path
connects the site to its neighborhood
streets. Homes may include individual
patios and represent a mix of one, two and
three-bedroom units. Financial analysis of
this prototype indicates a total estimated
development cost of approx. $16.8m and
return on investment of 6.5% with rents
adjusted to $1,850 per month to achieve
feasibility thresholds.

Conceptual Plan
Potential Site
Conceptual Rendering of Prototype
38 TOD Prospectus

4.1| 4.2| 4.3| INTRODUCTION KEY INVESTMENT

OPPORTUNITIES

STATION
AREAS
Public Draft
Development Program Prototype 4 -
Senior Cottages
Lot Size 228,300 sf
Number of Units 75 units
Gross Residential Area 62,460 sf
Net Residential Area 57,900 sf
Average Unit Size 772 sf
Gross Commercial Area 0 sf
Common Area/Amenity 1,460 sf
Gross Building Area (ex. Pkg.) 63,920 sf
Net Residential & Commercial 57,900 sf
Parking 28,460 sf
Parking Spaces 84 spaces
Landscaped Areas 128,170 sf
Revenue Per SF Per Unit Total
Residential Rent (Sales Rev.) $28.75 $22,195 $1,664,625 Laundry, etc. $0.23 $180 $13,500
Commercial Inc. (per net com) $18.00 $0 $0
Less Vacancy (5%) ($1.45) ($1,119) ($83,906)
Gross Effective Income $27.53 $21,256 $1,594,219
Less Operating (Sales) Exp. ($8.63) ($6,659) ($499,388) Net Annual Operating Income $18.91 $14,598 $1,094,831
Development Costs Per SF Per Unit Total
Shell Costs $167 $129,221 $9,691,585
Land ($10 per sf of land area) $39 $30,440 $2,283,000
Site Improvements $39 $30,440 $2,283,000
TI Allowance, commercial $0 $0 $0
Permits & Fees $6 $4,344 $325,808
Contingency (5% of direct costs) $10 $7,983 $598,729
Other Soft Costs $19 $14,860 $1,114,532
Financing $9 $6,900 $517,500
Total Development Costs (excl.
land)
$290 $224,189 $16,814,154
Return on Cost Per SF Per Unit 6.5%
Target Return on Cost N/A N/A 6.5%
Supported Investment $291 N/A $16,843,558
Estimated Development Cost $290 N/A $16,814,154
Gap to Achieve Target Return $0 $0 $0
TOD Prospectus
39 Public Draft
The Townhomes prototype illustrates the potential for 3-story walk-up townhomes in conventional wood-frame construction and with individual garage parking on a lot larger than 5 acres. The community provides a centralized amenity area and greenway that offers residents amenities and services and connects the site to neighborhood streets. Townhomes fronting the street contribute to a positive, pedestrian-friendly environment on the street, with front doors, porches, stoops, patios and windows facing the street and activating the street environment. Homes include larger living space and three and four-bedroom units to support families. Financial analysis of this prototype included analysis of both for-rent and for-sale product. The for-rent analysis indicates a total estimated development cost of approx. $43.3m and return on investment of 6.5% with rents adjusted to $3,100 per month to achieve feasibility thresholds. For-sale townhomes come in at a cost of $47.3m and return of 10% with sales prices of approximately $467,200 per unit to achieve feasibility thresholds.

Prototype 5 - Townhomes
204,675 sf
of residential space
118,555 sf
of public open space
230
parking stalls
Conceptual Plan
Potential Site
Conceptual Rendering of Prototype
40 TOD Prospectus

4.1| 4.2| 4.3| INTRODUCTION KEY INVESTMENT

OPPORTUNITIES

STATION
AREAS
Public Draft
Development Program Prototype 5A -
3-Story Rental Townhomes
Prototype 5B - 3-Story
For Sale Townhomes
Lot Size 233,200 sf 233,200 sf
Number of Units 115 units 115 units
Gross Residential Area 204,675 sf 204,675 sf
Net Residential Area 183,986 sf 183,986 sf
Average Unit Size 1,600 sf 1,600 sf
Gross Commercial Area 0 sf 0 sf
Common Area/Amenity 1,200 sf 1,200 sf
Gross Building Area (ex. Pkg.) 205,875 sf 205,875 sf
Net Residential & Commercial 183,986 sf 183,986 sf
Parking 53,600 sf 53,600 sf
Parking Spaces 230 spaces 230 spaces
Landscaped Areas 118,555 sf 118,555 sf
Revenue Per Sf Per Unit Total Per SF Per Unit Total
Residential Rent (Sales Rev.) $23.25 $37,197 $4,277,675 $292 $467,164 $53,723,912 Laundry, etc. $0.15 $240 $27,600 N/A N/A N/A
Commercial Inc. (per net com) $18.00 $0 $0 N/A N/A N/A
Less Vacancy (5%) ($1.17) ($1,872) ($215,264) (N/A) (N/A) (N/A) Gross Effective Income $22.23 $35,565 $4,090,011 N/A N/A N/A Less Operating (Sales) Exp./
Cost of Sale (5B)
($6.98) ($11,159) (1,283,302) ($8.76) ($14,015) ($1,611,717) Net Annual Operating Income (5A)
/ Net Sales Revenues (5B)
$15.26 $24,406 $2,806, 708 $283.24 $453,150 $52,112,195 Development Costs Per Sf Per Unit Total Per SF Per Unit Total Shell Costs $169 $270,710 $31,131,665 $187 $299,712 $34,466,839 Land ($10 per sf of land area) $13 $20,278 $2,332,000 $13 $20,278 $2,332,000 Site Improvements $13 $20,278 $2,332,000 $13 $20,278 $2,332,000 TI Allowance, commercial $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Permits & Fees $5 $8,084 $929,685 $5 $8,084 $929,685
Contingency (5% of direct costs) $9 $14,549 $1,673,183 $10 $15,999 $1,839,942 Other Soft Costs $19 $31,132 $3,580,141 $22 $34,467 $3,963,686 Financing $7 $11,600 $1,334,000 $8 $12,700 $1,460,500
Total Development Costs (excl. land) $235 $376,740 $43,312,673 $257 $411,627 $47,324,652 Return on Cost Per SF Per Unit 6.5% Per SF Per Unit 10.1% Target Return on Cost N/A N/A 6.5% N/A N/A 10.0%
Supported Investment $235 N/A $43,180,130 $257 N/A $47,374,722 Estimated Development Cost $235 N/A $43,312,673 $257 N/A $47,324,652 Gap to Achieve Target Return $1 $1,000 $132,543 $0 $0 $0 TOD Prospectus
41 Public Draft
The Adaptive Reuse prototype illustrates the potential for repurposing vacant and underutilized sites and buildings for more active uses that serve the local business community in the Study Area. In meetings with business leaders in the area, an interest was expressed in developing an incubator space for small, “mom and pop” businesses.

This prototype includes four to five incubator retail spaces with a shared access, storage area, and commercial kitchen. Parking is provided to the rear of the site off an alley and the street front includes a pedestrian plaza that may be used as spillover space for events.

Financial analysis of this prototype is not provided as this development prototype would be best achieved with a social service, non-profit investor using grants and charitable contributions in combination with economic development agency support.

Prototype 6 - Adaptive Reuse
Potential Site
Conceptual Plan
Conceptual Rendering of Prototype
5,000 sf
of building area
3,500 sf
of landscape/open space
11 parking stalls
42 TOD Prospectus

4.1| 4.2| 4.3| INTRODUCTION KEY INVESTMENT

OPPORTUNITIES

STATION
AREAS
Public Draft
The Clovis Culinary Center (CCC) is a unique
community non-profit that provides licensed commercial
kitchen facilities and a food-related small business
training program for small-scale food entrepreneurs
in the San Joaquin Valley. Established in 2014 with
the support of the City of Clovis, the Clovis Veterans
Memorial District, the California FreshWorks Fund,
the USDA, and Community Vision, CCC aims to help
entrepreneurs start or expand their businesses and
support local farms in the area. However, complying
with state and federal food safety regulations that
require a licensed commercial kitchen facility has been a challenge for small-scale food entrepreneurship in the region. CCC’s innovative model and partnership with
various organizations are addressing these challenges
and offering an affordable facility that will create jobs and spur local economic activity.

To attract low-income residents to join CCC and start
or expand a food-related business, the City of Clovis
has committed $80,000 of funding towards free or
reduced-cost memberships for its low-income residents
during CCC’s first year of operation. Clovis culinary
center partners with multiple organizations to help fund operations of their programs. CCC is also partnering
with the Clovis Veterans Memorial District to provide
free or reduced-cost memberships to area veterans who
wish to gain access to CCC. The center’s efforts are
expected to benefit not only individuals but also families and communities in the San Joaquin Valley by offering
a path to improve financial success through small-scale food entrepreneurship.

The Fresno Metro Ministry/Better Blackstone
organization launched the What’s Cooking Fresno?
Food Business & Entrepreneurship Training Program
in 2018 to support aspiring food business entrepreneurs, chefs, and management professionals. The program
received funding from The Kresge Foundation
FreshLo initiative, which supports community-based
organizations’ projects. The organization’s Building
the Better Blackstone CDC through Food Oriented
Placemaking project was one of the 26 grant recipients
out of 528 applicants and only two in California. The
initiative aimed to improve the community by using foodoriented placemaking strategies. The program’s success indicates the potential of food-oriented placemaking in building local businesses and employment opportunities.

Case Study - Clovis Culinary Center
Case Study - What’s Cooking Fresno?
TOD Prospectus
43 Public Draft
The following plans illustrate development and revitalization concepts for two representative station areas on the Corridor.

Station Area Plans
44 TOD Prospectus

4.1| 4.2| 4.3| INTRODUCTION KEY INVESTMENT

OPPORTUNITIES

STATION
AREAS
Public Draft
TOD Prospectus
45 Public Draft
A Transit Benefits Assessment was prepared by
CR Associates and is appended to this report (See
Appendix B for more details). The assessment
included analysis of the nine ‘Q’ line stations in the
Study Area against five transit orientation indicators
/ metrics to indicate the transit-supportiveness
of the station areas. Each station area was ranked
and the top scoring station areas identified were
the Cedar Station and a combined area at the
Chestnut/Willow Stations.

CEDAR

STATION

VENTURA AVE

CEDAR AVE
46 TOD Prospectus

4.1| 4.2| 4.3| INTRODUCTION KEY INVESTMENT

OPPORTUNITIES

STATION
AREAS
Public Draft
As seen along the Corridor: Tacos, Tijuana, Local Street Art, Bitwise Headquarters As seen along the Corridor: Selena Mural, Cedar Ave Bus Station, Fresno Fair Street Art

KEY POINTS
New Development along the corridor has the potential
to transform Ventura Ave into a walkable
“Main Street“ with continuous and active
storefronts facing the street.

The neighborhoods around Cedar Station are older and include smaller lots with both residential and commercial buildings that are located adjacent to the sidewalk and address the street. This existing positive street frontage is an ideal condition for transit corridors. This portion of the Corridor is planned for Neighborhood Mixed-Use (NMX) land use and is expected to evolve over time as a traditional “Main Street” environment with active storefronts, outdoor seating, and pedestrian oriented design at a neighborhood scale. Future development is expected to include ground-floor neighborhood retail uses and upper-level housing or offices, with a mix of small lot single-family, townhomes, and multi-family dwelling units on side streets, in a horizontal or vertical mixed use-orientation. The primary development pattern for Cedar Station is for TOD to “fill in the gaps” in that street edge and provide a continuous, activated frontage. Key strategies to implement in this station area include:

Positive Street Frontage - Infill development that is built out to face the street, engage with the street, and provide an active pedestrian environment.

Transparent Storefronts - Infill development that provides storefronts with transparent glazing so passersby can interact with businesses at a walking speed and businesses can maintain “eyes on the street” for natural surveillance.

Inviting Public Spaces - Infill development that invites pedestrians into shared open spaces that promote events, sidewalk seating, spillover retail, and gathering.

Cultural Expression - Infill development that is colorful, festive, artistic, and expresses a culture of place along the Corridor, its businesses, and the people who live in the area.

Streetscape Improvements - Infill development that supports widened sidewalks, landscape and trees to make the street environment pleasant and safe for everyone.

TOD Prospectus
47 Public Draft
Conceptual rendering of potential mixed-use infill development on Ventura Conceptual rendering of streetscape improvements along Ventura 48 TOD Prospectus

4.1| 4.2| 4.3| INTRODUCTION KEY INVESTMENT

OPPORTUNITIES

STATION
AREAS
Public Draft
Conceptual rendering of streetscape improvements along Ventura Conceptual rendering of potential mixed-use infill development on Ventura TOD Prospectus
49 Public Draft
Conceptual rendering of TOD at the Cedar Station Area
50 TOD Prospectus

4.1| 4.2| 4.3| INTRODUCTION KEY INVESTMENT

OPPORTUNITIES

STATION
AREAS
Public Draft
TOD Prospectus
51 Public Draft

E KINGS CANYON RD

CHESTNUT AVEWILLOW AVE

CHESTNUT/
WILLOW

STATION
52 TOD Prospectus

4.1| 4.2| 4.3| INTRODUCTION KEY INVESTMENT

OPPORTUNITIES

STATION
AREAS
Public Draft
As seen along the Corridor: Street view, The Fresno Center, Asian Village As seen along the Corridor: Retail plaza, Willow Bus Station, Olmos Elementary New Development along the corridor has the
potential to transform commercial centers into
placemaking hubs with housing, gathering
spaces, safe pedestrian connections,
and mobility amenities next to the
Q-line stations.

KEY POINTS
The Chestnut / Willow Avenue Station Area is newer and has larger lots and strip mall type shopping centers designed for the auto, with large parking lots addressing the street and retail buildings located at the back of the lots. This portion of the Corridor is planned Corridor/ Center Mixed-Use (CMX), which permits taller and more intense development than the NMX designation and is expected to evolve over time into vibrant, highly walkable corridor with broad, pedestrian-friendly sidewalks, trees, landscaping, and local-serving uses with new buildings that step down in relationship to the scale and character of adjacent neighborhoods. The CMX designation allows horizontal or vertical mixed-use development along this newer portion of the corridor where additional height and density can be easily accommodated. Ground-floor retail and upper-floor residential or offices are the primary uses, with residential uses, personal and business services, and public and institutional space as supportive uses. This development will help facilitate the transformation of transportation corridors into vibrant, highly walkable areas.

Key strategies to implement in this station area include:

Phased Approach - Recognizing that development is constrained in this area, a framework for development may follow a phased approach, with streetscape enhancements and neighborhood placemaking as first steps, followed by new connections and selective development at later stages.

Connectivity - New connections to break-up the large superblocks created by big-box commercial uses in the area.

Placemaking - Gathering areas to support existing businesses, allow them to expand into outdoor areas, and increase their visibility.

Integrated Development - Selective new development focused on underutilized, excess, or vacant portions of a center with new housing that is integrated with existing commercial uses and parking areas.

TOD Prospectus
53 Public Draft
Step 1 - Enhance the Streetscape
Proposed Framework
54 TOD Prospectus
Former Taxpayer
Advocate Service

4.1| 4.2| 4.3| INTRODUCTION KEY INVESTMENT

OPPORTUNITIES

STATION
AREAS
Public Draft
Step 2 - Make New Connections
TOD Prospectus
55 Former Taxpayer
Advocate Service
Public Draft
Step 3 - Embrace Opportunities for Placemaking
56 TOD Prospectus
Former Taxpayer
Advocate Service

4.1| 4.2| 4.3| INTRODUCTION KEY INVESTMENT

OPPORTUNITIES

STATION
AREAS
Public Draft
Step 4 - Integrate Selective New Development
TOD Prospectus
57 Former Taxpayer
Advocate Service
Public Draft
Conceptual rendering of TOD in the Chestnut/Willow Station Area 58 TOD Prospectus

4.1| 4.2| 4.3| INTRODUCTION KEY INVESTMENT

OPPORTUNITIES

STATION
AREAS
Public Draft
TOD Prospectus
59 Former Taxpayer
Advocate Service
Public Draft
Conceptual rendering of residential integrated with existing commercial “big box” Conceptual rendering of placemaking in a commercial center parking lot 60 TOD Prospectus

4.1| 4.2| 4.3| INTRODUCTION KEY INVESTMENT

OPPORTUNITIES

STATION
AREAS
Public Draft
Conceptual rendering of a mobility hub at the Chestnut Station Conceptual rendering of placemaking in a commercial center parking lot TOD Prospectus
61 Public Draft

5 IMPLEMENTATION
includes a summary of potential funding and financing resources to promote TOD.

This Chapter is organized into the following sections:

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Funding & Financing Resources

5.3 Existing City Resources

5.4 Tax-Increment Financing

5.5 State & Federal Programs
63 Implementation Public Draft

5.1 Introduction
64 Implementation

5.1| 5.2| FUNDING & FINANCING

RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION 5.3| EXISTING CITY
RESOURCES 5.4| TAXINCREMENT
FINANCING 5.5| STATE & FEDERAL

PROGRAMS
This section describes funding and financing
tools for infrastructure and affordable housing
that could facilitate the implementation of the
Study. A funding and implementation matrix
is included in Appendix D and enumerates
potential resources. It is important to note
that implementation of development along the
Corridor and in the two identified station areas
will need to occur over time, incrementally, and
in phases. For station areas surrounded by autocentric commercial centers with “big box” uses, development will require a phased approach. In
these instances, a first phase may involve simple
pedestrian enhancements and place-making
projects in and around the centers to make them
more attractive destinations for customers. With
a stronger pedestrian infrastructure in place,
these centers may begin to see development
in selective portions of the center, where the
opportunity for other uses exists, such as the
addition of housing.

As demonstrated in the six development
prototypes included in the Study, a variety
of opportunities exist for development along
the Corridor. While sites in the Study Area
accommodate this range of development
types, the financial models for all but one of
the prototypes demonstrate that rents will
need to increase significantly for projects to
work financially. Increases in rents may result
in the gentrification of the area and potential
displacement of its residents, businesses, and
community organizations. In order to combat
potential displacement, the City should be
proactive in implementing anti-displacement
policies and programs. A viable approach in
the near-term development of the area is for
projects to rely on some form of subsidy to
make the project financially feasible and “close
the gap” on its financing. Subsidies can also
help keep rents affordable so that existing
residents and businesses can remain and thrive
in their community. This section describes a
range of subsidy programs that may be used to
accomplish this goal.

Finally, development never occurs in a vacuum
and with a single actor. Development requires
a partnership between the community,
City officials, and a team of development
professionals, builders, construction workers,
and real estate professionals. This Study
recommends that a Development Resource
Working Group be formed to include this broad
coalition of stakeholders. A Development
Resource Working Group can advance the vision
of the Study and advocate for improvement
of the Corridor. Such a group can also act as
a liaison between community stakeholders
and businesses and the broader development
community to ensure that a relationship built
on trust and mutual interests can flourish so
that development in the Study Area and overall
Southeast Fresno community can benefit those
who live and work in the area the most.

Public Draft

5.2 Funding & Financing Resources
65 Implementation

5.1| 5.2| FUNDING & FINANCING

RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION 5.3|EXISTING CITY
RESOURCES 5.4| TAXINCREMENT
FINANCING 5.5| STATE & FEDERAL

PROGRAMS
Development Funding & Financing
Although the terms “funding” and “financing”
are often used interchangeably, there is an
important distinction between the two terms.
“Funding” typically refers to a revenue source
such as a tax, fee, or grant that is used to pay
for an improvement. Some funding sources,
such as impact fees, are one-time payments,
while others, such as assessments, are ongoing
payments. “Financing” involves borrowing
against future revenues by issuing bonds or
other debt instruments that are paid back
over time through taxes or fee payments,
enabling agencies to pay for the improvements
before the revenue to cover the full cost of the
improvements is available.

The funding sources and financing tools have
been evaluated relative to their purpose, process
of adoption and implementation. Funding and
financing mechanisms are organized under four
broad categories:

1. Developer, property owner, and user
funding, financing and resources for
infrastructure

2. Existing City resources for infrastructure
and affordable housing

3. Tax-increment financing for infrastructure,
public facilities, and affordable housing;
and

4. State and federal funds for infrastructure,
and affordable housing
Developer Funding & Financing Resources
Developers are primarily responsible for building
on-site improvements necessary to complete
their projects. In contrast, the path to delivery
of infrastructure that serves a broader area
requires greater coordination among public and
private stakeholders. The mechanisms described
below offer ways of engaging developers in the
funding and financing of off-site improvements
necessary for accommodating new development
and spurring further economic growth. A final
tool, incentive agreements, provides a vehicle for
local agencies to fund a portion of on-site costs
in cases where private development would not
otherwise be feasible.

A. Development Impact Fees
Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act1, local
agencies may assess impact fees to cover
incremental service and capital costs of new
development. Fees are typically paid at the time
of building permit issuance or recording the final
subdivision map and are placed into a reserve
fund for specific improvements. Parking or traffic
mitigation fees are examples of development
impact fees. A technical analysis is required
to demonstrate the proportional relationship
between the fee and the incremental costs to
the agency, prior to adoption by the legislative
body. Local agencies may also consider
market factors when setting fees, in particular,
whether fee levels stand to impact development
feasibility.

Impact fees provide an important revenue
source for funding local infrastructure. The
challenge is sequencing current fee revenues
with infrastructure investments necessary to
serve near- and long-term growth. Several
tools address this challenge by encouraging
private investment in area-serving infrastructure,
discussed below.

Public Draft
66 Implementation

5.1| 5.2| FUNDING & FINANCING

RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION 5.3| EXISTING CITY
RESOURCES 5.4| TAXINCREMENT
FINANCING 5.5| STATE & FEDERAL

PROGRAMS
B. Special Assessment and Special Tax
Districts
The intent of special assessment and special
tax districts is to fund public capital facilities
to serve new development. Districts adopt a
new special assessment or special tax paid
by property owners within a defined area,
which can be used to issue debt for capital
improvements that benefit the district. Pursuant
to Proposition 218, special assessments must
be assigned to property owners in direct
proportion to the benefits received from
targeted improvements. Special tax districts
are not subject to the same standard and
allow for a variety of property characteristics
– other than property value – to determine tax
apportionment. Both special assessments and
special tax districts are subject to approval
by voters (if 12 or more are registered in the
district) or affected property owners (in all other
cases). A simple majority is required for special
assessments, whereas special taxes must be
approved by a two-thirds majority.

The scope of eligible activities in special tax
districts is broader than in special assessment
districts. While facilities or services funded by
special assessment districts must confer “special
benefits” upon affected property owners,
special tax districts must only ensure that new
capital facilities and services supplement, rather
than supplant, existing levels of service in the
district. Due to their greater flexibility, special
tax districts are more commonly utilized than
special assessment districts.

Special tax districts are typically authorized
under the Mello-Roos Communities Facilities
Act of 1982 and are referred to as Community
Facilities Districts (CFDs). A variety of special
assessment districts are authorized under state
law, including the Municipal Improvement Act of
1913, Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, and
Benefit Assessment Act of 19822. A comparison
of the two structures follows.

Mello Roos/Community Facilities Districts
(CFDs)
Process: The process to establish a CFD may
be initiated by two members of the sponsoring
legislative body, 10 percent of district voters, or
10 percent of landholders (measured by acreage
owned). Proposed districts may include noncontiguous areas. Adoption of the special tax requires a public hearing and an affirmative
vote by two-thirds of the qualifying electorate.

If there are 12 or more registered voters within
the proposed geographic area of the district,
then the formation election is an election of
registered voters. If there are less than 12
registered voters, then the formation election is
an election of property owners, with each owner
receiving one vote per acre of owned property.

The same approval requirements apply to the
issuance of bonds. Bonds are limited to a 40-
year maturity and are secured by special tax
payments. CFD taxes are paid concurrently with
ad valorem property taxes. Throughout the life of
the district, an annual report must be produced
upon request of property owners.

Use of Funds: CFDs are eligible to fund the
planning, design, construction, rehabilitation or
acquisition of a broad range of public facilities.

Examples of eligible improvements include:
• Streets and public right of way
improvements;
• Park, recreation, and open-space facilities;
• School sites and structures;
• Libraries, childcare facilities;
• Water, wastewater and utility infrastructure;
• Stormwater management;
• Flood infrastructure; and
• Seismic retrofitting.
1 Government Code §66000
2 Government Code §53311
Public Draft
67 Implementation

5.1| 5.2| FUNDING & FINANCING

RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION 5.3|EXISTING CITY
RESOURCES 5.4| TAXINCREMENT
FINANCING 5.5| STATE & FEDERAL

PROGRAMS
In addition, districts may fund certain public
services provided that services are not funded
with bond proceeds and services do not
supplant those offered prior to the formation of
the district. Examples of eligible services include
fire and police protection and the maintenance
of new infrastructure or parks.

Evaluation: CFDs have proven effective at
funding broad-based capital projects in
developing areas, similar to the Study Area. They
are most commonly used in circumstances in
which approval is limited to a small group of
land holders. The special tax creates a dedicated
funding source suitable for bond financing but
also an additional cost on property ownership.

CFDs could be particularly useful for funding
KCCTOD related improvements.

Special Assessment Districts
Process: Special assessments districts require
the preparation of an engineer’s report that
demonstrates that planned improvements will
confer a “special benefit” upon the district. The
report must also allocate the costs of proposed
improvements in proportion to benefits received
from services and improvements. Affected
property owners vote on the assessment, with
voting weighted proportionally to each property
owner’s proposed assessment. A simple majority
is required for the assessment to take effect.

Once established, the sponsoring public agency
may issue bonds secured against assessment
revenue, pursuant to the Improvement Bond Act
of 19153.

Uses of Funds: The many variants of special
assessment districts under state law authorize
the construction of public facilities such as
landscaping, lighting, streets, water, wastewater
and storm water infrastructure, parks and public
facilities. Most assessment districts also allow
funding of maintenance costs associated with
public facilities. However, assessment bonds are
not authorized to pay for ongoing services.

Evaluation: Special assessments are appropriate
for funding maintenance and infrastructure
when benefits can be clearly measured and
apportioned among landholders. The revenue
capacity of special assessment districts is
relatively limited given that assessments may
only account for benefits conferred on specific
property owners that go beyond standard levels
of service.

C. Developer Credits and Reimbursements
Many local agencies permit developers to
construct area-serving infrastructure such as
streets, utilities, parks and open space in lieu
of paying certain impact fees. Local agencies
may also enter into agreements to reimburse
developers for investments in area-serving
infrastructure in cases where the value of the
investment exceeds fees otherwise owed by
the project. Local agencies may pledge future
development-based revenues, such as impact
fees, assessments or special taxes towards the
reimbursement agreement; however, pursuant
to Government Code §53190, the general fund
must not be liable for repayment of obligations.

All special levies and assessments are subject
to approval by property owners and voters, as
described in the previous section.
3 Streets & Highways Code §8500
Public Draft
68 Implementation

5.1| 5.2| FUNDING & FINANCING

RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION 5.3| EXISTING CITY
RESOURCES 5.4| TAXINCREMENT
FINANCING 5.5| STATE & FEDERAL

PROGRAMS
D. Development Agreements and Enhanced
Entitlements
It is common for local agencies to enter into a
development agreement when conferring longterm entitlements for a major project. As part of the negotiation process, developers may offer
to provide extraordinary benefits, including
infrastructure and other public facilities. These
commitments are agreed upon at the discretion
of negotiating parties and as such are not
subject to the Mitigation Fee Act. The nature
and magnitude of benefits provided will depend
on local market conditions, the entitlements,
and the development economics of the project.

Providing favorable entitlements can be an
effective means for funding infrastructure and
public facilities. Examples include: reducing
parking requirements, increasing permitted floor
to area ratios, etc. By increasing the value of
the private development, additional “value” is
created for infrastructure improvements.

E. Economic Incentive Agreements
Incentive agreements provide the private sector
a form of gap funding in situations where the
development economics do not support the full
cost of a commercial project with the potential
to deliver substantial community benefits. Local
agencies may enter into incentive agreements
pledging to rebate a portion of sales taxes
generated by new businesses locating to an
area that designate the jurisdiction as the point
of sale. Incentive agreements may also rebate
a portion of Transient Occupancy tax revenues
generated by new lodging developments.

Developers or tenants can leverage such
agreements to finance site or tenant
improvements in private capital markets secured
by anticipated tax rebates. Pursuant to Section
53083 of the California Government Code,
jurisdictions providing economic development
subsidies must specify in a public hearing
the amount of the subsidy and the projected
benefits prior to entering into an incentive
agreement valued above $100,000.

F. User and Enterprise Fees
User fees could be a potential source of
funding for water, wastewater, and stormwater
improvements. However, user fees in urbanized
areas typically pay for ongoing operations and
maintenance of existing facilities and may not be
a major source of funding for improvements in
the Southeast Fresno area.

Public Draft

5.3 Existing City Resources
A. General Fund
While not a primary funding source, the City’s
General Fund may be a useful source for shortterm loans to be repaid by longer-term sources of capital.

B. Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
A portion of the infrastructure projects may be
appropriate for including in the City’s Capital
Improvement Program.

C. Local Housing Trust Fund
In 2021, the City of Fresno passed Resolution
2021-201, establishing a Local Housing Trust
Fund (LHTF) to support access to decent, safe,
and affordable housing within the city. The LHTF
can provide funding to a variety of communitysupported housing programs and activities according to adopted Program Guidelines.

5.4 Tax-Increment Financing
Tax-increment financing permits local agencies
to finance infrastructure and other community
improvements by issuing bonds secured by
growth in an area’s property tax revenues. Taxincrement financing was approved by California voters in 1952 and later became a widely used
tool of redevelopment agencies. Following
the dissolution of redevelopment in 2012, the
State of California has bolstered alternative
means of tax-increment finance through the
approval of legislation that permits the creation
of “Enhanced Infrastructure Finance Districts”
(EIFDs) and other variations of financing
districts.

While not as robust as redevelopment agencies,
alternative tools can serve as an important
funding source for public facilities and other
eligible projects. Once established, districts are
authorized to receive tax-increment revenues
from a defined area with the consent of affected
taxing entities, excluding school districts. The
financing capacity of the districts is driven by
a city’s portion of the 1% property tax levy and
the magnitude of new real estate development/
value that is anticipated to occur within the
district. It is an effective tool when a city
receives a large share of the 1% property tax
levy. The City of Fresno receives approximately

19.6% of the 1% base levy, which is a typical
allocation rate for a city. Other local tax revenues
can be deposited into an EIFD, including
property taxes in-lieu of motor vehicle license
fees, Redevelopment Property Tax Transfer
Funds (RPTTF), assessment district revenues,
etc. Districts may include any area, including
non-contiguous areas, within a sponsoring city
or county.

A. Enhanced Infrastructure Finance Districts
(EIFDs)
Process: The governing local agency (county
for unincorporated areas) is permitted to initiate
the formation of an EIFD. The first step entails
forming a Public Financing Agency (PFA) to
govern the district and adopting a
69 Implementation

5.1| 5.2| FUNDING & FINANCING

RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION 5.3|EXISTING CITY
RESOURCES 5.4| TAXINCREMENT
FINANCING 5.5| STATE & FEDERAL

PROGRAMS
Public Draft
resolution of intention to form the district. The
governing entity oversees the preparation of the
infrastructure finance plan, which must specify
the boundaries of the district, the projects to be
financed, tax revenues to be captured over time,
a plan for debt financing, a fiscal analysis, and
the district term. The EIFD is approved through
a process of three public hearings and a ”protest
vote” of registered voters within the boundaries
of the proposed district, which is only required
if more than 25% of combined registered voters
and landowners register disapproval of the
formation. Otherwise, the district is formed by a
majority vote of the members of the PFA. Voter
approval is not required for the issuance of bond
debt secured by the EIFD.

Term: An EIFD may extend 45 years from
approval of bond issuance.

Use of Funds: At a minimum, infrastructure
finance districts are eligible to fund public
facilities that serve an area broader than the
boundaries of the district. Such facilities may
include transportation infrastructure, water and
wastewater infrastructure, solid waste facilities,
and community amenities including parks,
libraries, and childcare centers. All structures
also authorized funding of affordable housing
costs associated with a Transit Priority Project,
pursuant to Government Code §654704. The
scope of EIFDs extends to other forms of private
development assistance, including brownfield
restoration, Sustainable Communities Strategy
projects, industrial structures for private use,
and affordable housing. While not required to
build housing, infrastructure finance districts
must replace any affordable units destroyed or
removed in the course of the district’s activities.

Funding Capacity: EIFD revenues are generated
by the voluntary allocation of a portion of each
participating agency’s share of incremental
property tax revenues generated within the
boundaries of the district. It is likely that the City
would be the only participating taxing agency of
an EIFD at the SDC. EIFD revenues can be used
to fund improvements on a pay-as-you-go basis,
to reimburse developers or to secure debt.

Other terms: EIFDs are funded by a diversion of
incremental property tax revenues to the district.

It is not a new tax on property or secured by a
lien on property.
70 Implementation

5.1| 5.2| FUNDING & FINANCING

RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION 5.3| EXISTING CITY
RESOURCES 5.4| TAXINCREMENT
FINANCING 5.5| STATE & FEDERAL

PROGRAMS
4 A Transit Priority Project must be located within a half mile of a major transit stop, contain at least 50 percent residential uses, and reserve at least 20 percent of units for families with moderate incomes or less.

Public Draft

5.5 State & Federal Programs
State Programs
Federal, state, and regional grants, loans and
incentive programs are valuable sources of gap
financing and funding for local infrastructure
and economic development projects. There
are a number of programs to fund projects that
improve sustainability – affordable housing,
bicycle paths, in-fill housing, connectivity
improvements, intensifying development around
public transit hubs, etc.

A. Sample Grant Programs
Cap and Trade Funds – AHSC Program
(Affordable Housing & Sustainable
Communities). These funds are administered by
the Strategic Growth Council and implemented
through California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD). The goal of
the funds is to incentivize the development of
compact, transit-oriented affordable housing,
transportation infrastructure and enhancements,
and related programs that reduce greenhouse
gas emissions (GHGs).

Infill Infrastructure Grant Program (IIG). This
program is administered by the HCD. The
primary goal is to promote infill housing
development by funding infrastructure
improvements that support higher density
affordable and mixed-income housing in infill
locations.

Active Transportation Program (ATP). This
program is administered by Caltrans. The
purpose of the ATP is to encourage increased
use of active modes of transportation, biking &
walking. The ATP consolidates existing federal
and state transportation programs, including
the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP),
Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA), and State
Safe Routes to School into a single program with
a focus to make California a national leader in
active transportation.

B. Loan Programs
Loan programs provide local agencies and
private partners with loan guarantees, access
to tax exempt bond pools, or other forms of
debt financing with favorable rates and terms.

Commonly utilized loan programs include:

Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program.

This program is administered by the State Water
Resources Control Board. It provides low cost
financing for a wide variety of water quality
projects.

State Infrastructure Bank – Industrial
Development Bonds. The State Infrastructure
Bank’s Industrial Development Bonds program
funds the acquisition, construction and
rehabilitation of manufacturing facilities. Bonds
are issued by the State Infrastructure Bank, local
Industrial Development Authorities, or Joint
Power Authorities. Applications are submitted
for specific projects rather than for community
wide improvements. IDB financing provides
projects up to $10 million in long-term financing
at favorable interest rates. Terms of maturity are
limited to 120% of the life of the assets financed.

The majority of funds must be dedicated toward
production purposes; no more than 25% may
support investments in office or warehouse
space. Applications are accepted on an ongoing
basis.

State Infrastructure Bank Revolving Loan
Program. The State Infrastructure Bank
Revolving Loan Fund provides favorable loans
of up to $25 million to local agencies to finance
a range of infrastructure projects. Eligible
projects include public facilities such as streets,
water and waste water infrastructure, as well
71 Implementation

5.1| 5.2| FUNDING & FINANCING

RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION 5.3|EXISTING CITY
RESOURCES 5.4| TAXINCREMENT
FINANCING 5.5| STATE & FEDERAL

PROGRAMS
Public Draft
as private development assistance including
the construction of industrial and commercial
facilities and related infrastructure. Local
agencies determine the revenue source for loan
repayment. Applications are accepted on an
ongoing basis.

Statewide Community Infrastructure Program.

The Statewide Community Infrastructure
Program (SCIP) is a tax exempt financing
pool administered by the California Statewide
Communities Development Authority (CSCDA).

Thirty-year, tax-exempt bonds issued by CSCDA
are secured by special assessments or a special
tax levy. Proceeds may be used to fund public
facilities, advance impact fees payable to a local
agency, or reimburse developers for the cost
of public improvements. The SCIP achieves
favorable interest rates by pooling smaller
financings into a single bond issuance. SCIP can
also assist local agencies in the establishment
of special assessment or community facility
districts. Any local agency that is a member of
CSCDA is eligible to participate; applications are
accepted on an ongoing basis.

Federal Programs
A. Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program
(Federal and State Program) for Affordable
Rental Housing
The low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC)
program, created in 1986 and made permanent
in 1993, is an indirect federal subsidy used to
finance the construction and rehabilitation of
low-income affordable rental housing. Without
the incentive, affordable rental housing projects
do not generate sufficient profit to warrant the
investment.

The LIHTC gives investors a dollar-for-dollar
reduction in their federal tax liability in exchange
for providing financing to develop affordable
rental housing. Investors’ equity contribution
subsidizes low-income housing development,
thus allowing some units to rent at below-market
rates. In return, investors receive tax credits paid
in annual allotments, generally over 10 years.

Investor equity contributed to the project in
exchange for the credits typically finances 30%
to 60% of the capital costs of the project.

California generally requires affordability
covenants to remain in place for a minimum of
55 years.

B. Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act (Federal Funding) for Infrastructure
Investments
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(IIJA), a federal law passed in 2021, authorizes
$1.2 trillion in funding for infrastructure projects
over the next decade. It is estimated that the
State of California will capture approximately
$42 billion5 in infrastructure funding from IIJA.

More specifically, the law provides several
provisions that will help alleviate development
expenses incurred by the City or Developer for
on and off-site infrastructure improvements. For
instance, IIJA includes funding for Community
Development Block Grants, which can be used
for a variety of purposes related to community
development and infrastructure, such as
new sidewalks or streetlights. The law also
provides significant funding for transportation
infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, and
public transit, which may also be accessible to
developers for on-site improvements that involve
transportation infrastructure. Finally, the law also
includes funding for a range of other initiatives,
such as water and broadband infrastructure,
electric vehicle charging infrastructure, lead pipe
replacement, the modernization of public transit
systems, and funding for the redevelopment of
brownfield sites.
72 Implementation

5.1| 5.2| FUNDING & FINANCING

RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION 5.3| EXISTING CITY
RESOURCES 5.4| TAXINCREMENT
FINANCING 5.5| STATE & FEDERAL

PROGRAMS
5 Based on formula funding alone.

Public Draft

75 Appendices Public Draft
A

APPENDICES
76 Appendices Public Draft
www.fresno.gov/KCCTOD
https://tinyurl.com/KCCTOD-Appendix-A
Appendices
For additional information on the Kings Canyon
Corridor Transit-Oriented Development
Connectivity Study, please refer to the appendices
included in the report. To access these
appendices, please visit the respective links or
scan the QR codes provided
Appendix A- Development Financial
Feasibility Study
Appendix A contains a
Development Financial
Feasibility Analysis,
which provides an
analysis of the financial
feasibility of the
conceptual building
prototypes described in
Chapter 3.
77 Appendices Public Draft
https://tinyurl.com/KCCTOD-Appendix-B
https://tinyurl.com/KCCTOD-Appendix-C
https://tinyurl.com/KCCTOD-Appendix-D
Appendix B- Exisiting Conditions Atlas
Appendix C- Mobility Concepts
Appendix D- Implementation Matrix
Appendix B is an Existing Conditions
Atlas, which summarizes baseline
information on existing conditions,
opportunities, and constraints
along the Corridor. To support the
existing conditions analysis, a full
market analysis and transit benefits
assessment were performed, which are
also included in this report.

Appendix C depicts grant-ready
Mobility Concepts for areas along the
Corridor that were identified in the
transit benefits assessment as most
prime for enhancements.

Appendix D provides an
Implementation Matrix with additional
details for funding and financing tools
described in Chapter 5 that have the
potential to facilitate the implementation
of TOD along the Corridor.