E
xhibit F
September 2025
553247v1
V E H I C L E M I L E S T R A V E L E D R E D U C T I O N
P R O G R A M A N D N E X U S S T U D Y
CITY O F FRESNO
FRESN O COUNTY, CALIFOR NIA
September 2025
553247v1
V E H I C L E M I L E S T R A V E L E D R E D U C T I O N
P R O G R A M A N D N E X U S S T U D Y
CITY O F FRESNO
FRESN O COUNTY, CALIFOR NIA
Submitted to:
Sophia Pagoulatos
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno Street, 3rd Floor
Fresno, California 93721
Prepared by:
LSA
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200
Riverside, California 92507
(951) 781-9310
Project No. CFO2101
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) changed the way transportation impact analyses are conducted under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with SB 743, the Fresno City Council adopted the CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds (VMT Guidelines) for the City of Fresno (City) on June 25, 2020, to address the shift from delay-based level of service CEQA traffic analyses to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) CEQA traffic analyses. The City VMT Guidelines included standardized project screening criteria and VMT significance thresholds for development and transportation projects, and recommended VMT mitigation strategies. However, the implementation of SB 743 has created challenges for development projects by triggering significant VMT impacts without clear, proven, and feasible mitigation measures to offset such impacts. As such, the City proposed to create a VMT Reduction Program to provide an opportunity for development projects to mitigate VMT impacts and streamline compliance for SB 743.
GOALS OF THE VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM
Under CEQA, if a project is determined to have a significant environmental impact, feasible mitigation measures must be identified to mitigate the impact, where possible. Providing VMT mitigation has proven to be more complex as mitigation measures may not be physical improvements, are subject to variability of human behavior, or require ongoing maintenance. In addition, on-site mitigation alone may be insufficient in mitigating the regional scale of VMT impacts. The VMT Reduction Program seeks to address these issues by establishing a consistent methodology for calculating VMT reduction, pre-planning more effective and affordable VMT mitigation projects, and addressing other needs of the community.
LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK
A fee is a monetary exaction other than a tax or special assessment, whether established for a broad class of projects by legislation of general applicability or imposed on a specific project on an ad hoc basis, that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project (Government Code § 66000(b)). The legal requirements for enactment of a development impact fee program are set forth in Government Code §§ 66000– 66025 (also referred to as the “Mitigation Fee Act”), many of which were adopted as part of Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) and thus are often referred to as “AB 1600 requirements.” The VMT Reduction Program complies with the California Mitigation Fee Act by establishing an “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality.” An essential nexus for the VMT Reduction Program is established by defining how the VMT mitigation fee will be used to fund VMT mitigation projects across the city. A rough proportionality for the VMT Reduction Program is established by defining that the VMT mitigation fee would only be applicable to development projects that have been determined to have a significant VMT impact from a detailed VMT analysis and that the VMT mitigation fee collected from the development projects with a significant VMT impact will fund only a portion of the VMT mitigation projects.
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
ii
The VMT Reduction Program must also adhere to the concept of additionality under CEQA, where investments made to mitigate environmental impacts should provide benefits that otherwise would not have occurred absent the VMT Reduction Program. To ensure “additionality,” each VMT reducing project in the VMT Reduction Program was analyzed to ensure that mitigation projects were not already fully funded.
VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM FRAMEWORK
The City’s VMT Reduction Program was designed to provide a flexible, streamlined, and cost- effective approach to mitigate VMT impacts of land use development projects using the City’s “Urban Design Calculator” (UDC) and a VMT mitigation fee.
The UDC was developed to assist development projects that trigger VMT impacts. The UDC uses design elements of a project that have a potential to reduce project VMT and estimates total VMT reduction due to those design elements. The City determined that the VMT Reduction Program would update the City’s UDC using the most recent research on VMT mitigation strategies. The update was primarily based on strategies provided in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Handbook (CAPCOA Handbook, 2021, 2024) transportation section. The UDC would help projects reduce VMT impacts by implementing VMT reducing project design features at the project site. In case the project results in a significant VMT impact even with the UDC, the VMT Reduction Program would allow those developments to further mitigate VMT impacts by making “fair share” payments into the program to cover the cost of identified VMT reducing projects in the proposed VMT Reduction Program.
During the preparation of the VMT Reduction Program, thorough research of local planning documents such as the City’s Active Transportation Plan, the Fresno Area Express (FAX) short-range and long-range transit plans, and the Fresno Council of Government’s Regional Transportation Plan was conducted along with available literature of VMT mitigation strategies. The objective was to compile a list of active transportation and transit-related infrastructure and capital improvement projects that can be funded by the program. Fees paid towards the VMT Reduction Program will provide funding to build the top 24 most effective VMT mitigation projects that were prioritized based on the following criteria: VMT offset provided, enhancing connectivity, enhancing access and equity, contributions to safety, cost effectiveness, and feasibility of implementation.
VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM COSTS
The VMT Reduction Program would require units of VMT pricing for ease of implementation. In coordination with the City and stakeholders, the cost ($) to reduce one vehicle mile traveled was selected as the unit of VMT mitigation bank credit or VMT pricing. In order to determine the cost to reduce one vehicle mile traveled, total costs of all the VMT reducing projects and the amount of VMT that should be mitigated were estimated. Based on the VMT reducing project costs and unmitigated citywide origin-destination VMT, the cost for reducing one VMT/VMT reduction credit was estimated to be $295.
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. iii FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................................................................................. v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................................ vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. I Background ..................................................................................................................................... i Goals of the VMT Reduction Program ............................................................................................ i Legal and Administrative Framework ............................................................................................ i VMT Reduction Program Framework ............................................................................................ ii VMT Reduction Program Costs ..................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 Background .................................................................................................................................... 1 Assembly Bill 32 .................................................................................................................................. 1 Assembly Bill 1358 .............................................................................................................................. 1 Senate Bill 375 .................................................................................................................................... 2 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality ........................................................................... 2 Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (2019) ................... 2 Goals of the VMT Reduction Program ........................................................................................... 2 Program Overview ......................................................................................................................... 3 Key Program Framework Decisions ............................................................................................... 4 LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK ............................................................... 6 Legal Framework ........................................................................................................................... 6 Definition of Mitigation Fees .............................................................................................................. 6 Nexus .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Additionality ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Administrative Framework .......................................................................................................... 10 Bank Sponsor .................................................................................................................................... 10 Bank Service Areas ........................................................................................................................... 10 Staffing ............................................................................................................................................. 10 Estimated Costs for Administering the Program .............................................................................. 12 Mitigation Action Implementation ................................................................................................... 12 Monitoring and Reporting ................................................................................................................ 12 Capital Improvement Plan Requirements ................................................................................... 12 VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM FRAMEWORK ............................................................... 14 Urban Design Calculator .............................................................................................................. 14 Mitigation Bank Projects ............................................................................................................. 16 Project Selection ............................................................................................................................... 16 Evaluation and Prioritization Criteria ............................................................................................... 17 List of Prioritized Projects ................................................................................................................. 25 Capital Improvement Plan ........................................................................................................... 28 Revenue ............................................................................................................................................ 28
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
iv
Expenditure ...................................................................................................................................... 29 VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM COSTS .......................................................................... 30 Fiscal Framework ......................................................................................................................... 30 Determination of VMT Fee ............................................................................................................... 30 Calculation of Project Mitigation Fee .......................................................................................... 32 Steps to Calculate VMT Mitigation Fee ............................................................................................ 32 Sample Calculation of VMT Mitigation Fee ...................................................................................... 34
APPENDICES
A: URBAN DESIGN CALCULATOR
B: VMT MITIGATION PROJECT SCORING
C: VMT MITIGATION PROJECT LIST AND SCORING
D: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS
E: SAMPLE FEE CALCULATIONS
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
v
FIGURES AND TABLES
FIGURES
Figure 1: Additionality of VMT Mitigation Projects ................................................................................ 9 Figure 2: VMT Reduction Program Process for Development Projects................................................ 15 Figure 3: VMT Mitigation Project Locations ......................................................................................... 26 Figure 4: Estimation of VMT Mitigation Fee for Development Projects with Significant VMT Impact .......................................................................................................................................... 33
TABLES
Table A: VMT Reduction Program Projects .......................................................................................... 27 Table B: VMT Reduction Program CIP Revenue Calculation ................................................................ 29 Table C: Comparison of Existing Fees versus VMT Mitigation Fee ....................................................... 35
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AB 32 Assembly Bill 32
AB 1358 Assembly Bill 1358
AB 1600 Assembly Bill 1600
ABM Activity-Based Model
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CAPCOA Handbook California Air Pollution Control Officers Association Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Handbook
CARB California Air Resources Board
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CIP Capital Improvement Plan
City City of Fresno
COG Council of Governments
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FAX Fresno Area Express
GHG greenhouse gas
LOS level of service
OD origin-destination
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SB 375 Senate Bill 375
SB 743 Senate Bill 743
SB 743 Policy Report Berkeley Law Implementing SB 743 Policy Report TRB Transportation Research Board
UDC Urban Design Calculator
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VMT Guidelines CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
1 INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
In September 2013, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research signed Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) into law, starting a process that fundamentally changed the way transportation impact analysis is conducted under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SB 743 identifies vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate CEQA transportation metric and eliminates auto delay, or level of service (LOS), and similar measurements of vehicular roadway capacity and traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant impacts. In December 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted the CEQA statute (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15064.3). Per the CEQA statute, the VMT guidelines became effective on July 1, 2020.
In accordance with SB 743, the Fresno City Council adopted the CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds (VMT Guidelines) for the City of Fresno (City) on June 25, 2020, to address the shift from delay-based LOS CEQA traffic analyses to VMT CEQA traffic analyses. The City’s VMT Guidelines include standardized project screening criteria for projects, recommendations for appropriate VMT significance thresholds for development projects, transportation projects, and plans, and feasible VMT mitigation strategies for projects.
The implementation of SB 743 and the City’s adopted VMT Guidelines have created challenges for development projects in Fresno. Specifically, development projects that trigger potentially significant VMT impacts under CEQA are experiencing challenges in finding feasible or economically viable mitigations to offset such impacts. Thus, the City proposed to create a VMT Reduction Program to streamline the SB 743 compliance process for development within Fresno.
The following provides a summary of other legislative actions, plans, and policies relevant to the development of the VMT Reduction Program.
Assembly Bill 32
Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), also known as the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, was signed into law in September 2006. AB 32 required California to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, a reduction of 15 percent below emissions under “business as usual,” and requires a further reduction of 80 percent by 2050. Pursuant to AB 32, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) must adopt regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emissions reductions.
Assembly Bill 1358
Assembly Bill 1358 (AB 1358), also known as the California Complete Streets Act of 2008, was signed into law in September 2008. AB 1358 requires the legislative body of a city or county, upon revision of the circulation element of the General Plan, to include a complete street policy, for the accommodations of all users of the roadway including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, users with disabilities, and users of public transportation.
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
2 Senate Bill 375
Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), also known as the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, was signed into law September 2008. SB 375 directs the CARB to establish regional targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, by using the regional transportation planning process to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions consistent with AB 32 goals. SB 375 also offered CEQA incentives to encourage projects that are consistent with a regional plan that achieves greenhouse gas emission reductions and coordinated the regional housing needs allocation process with the regional transportation process while maintaining local authority over land use decisions. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality
The CARB’s Scoping Plan lays out the sector-by-sector roadmap for California to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier, outlining a technologically feasible, cost-effective, and equity focused path to achieve the State’s climate target. This plan extends and expands earlier plans with a target of reducing anthropogenic emissions to 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045. To fulfill these goals, there will be a need to provide communities with sustainable options for walking, biking, and public transit to reduce the reliance on cars. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update identifies the following strategies for achieving success to reduce VMT:
Invest in making public transit a viable alternative to driving by increasing affordability, reliability, coverage, service frequency, and consumer experience. Expand and complete planned networks of high-quality active transportation infrastructure.
Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (2019) The State of California Natural Resources Agency revised the CEQA Guidelines in 2019 to become consistent with SB 743. Revisions in the CEQA Guidelines under Section 15064.3 codify the switch from LOS to VMT as the metric for transportation impact analysis. Under Section 15064.3 (c), a lead agency could elect to be governed by the provisions of VMT immediately. Beginning on July 1, 2020, the provisions of VMT applied statewide for all jurisdictions.
GOALS OF THE VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM
Currently, when a significant impact is identified, feasible mitigation projects must be identified to avoid or substantially reduce that impact. Lead agencies are responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation projects is in accordance with the program and have been completed. However, VMT mitigation projects are more complex in nature as some mitigation projects may not be physical improvements and are subject to the variability of human behavior.
Furthermore, on-site mitigations alone are often insufficient in mitigating VMT impacts due to the regional scale of VMT impacts.
To identify VMT mitigation projects beyond that of the project site, the current approach for VMT mitigation requires each individual development project on a project-by-project basis to individually identify, analyze, negotiate, and coordinate mitigation actions. This project-by-project mitigation runs the risk of inconsistently analyzing how much VMT reduction can be achieved from VMT projects. The VMT Reduction Program allows the City to pre-plan VMT mitigation projects. Using this
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
3 mitigation model, the City can strategically plan mitigation projects to reduce the time required for implementation, have a consistent methodology of calculating VMT reduction, and ensure that mitigation projects are aligned with the goals of the City. The VMT Reduction Program can prioritize a list of VMT mitigation projects that are deemed the most cost effective and responsive to the needs of the community.
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
During preparation of the VMT Reduction Program, thorough research of local planning documents such as the City’s Active Transportation Plan, the Fresno Area Express (FAX) short-range and long- range transit plans, and the Fresno Council of Government’s (COG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) was conducted. In addition, available literature on VMT mitigation strategies was consulted, and the City’s VMT Guidelines were reviewed to identify locally applicable VMT mitigation project types. This effort identified potential active transportation and transit-related infrastructure and capital improvement projects that could be funded by the program. Planning-level cost estimates and nexus calculations were prepared for the identified VMT reducing projects to estimate the cost of identified improvements and the net VMT benefits.
The City had previously developed an “Urban Design Calculator” (UDC) to assist development projects that have triggered VMT impacts. The UDC uses design elements of a project that have a potential to reduce project VMT and estimates total VMT reduction due to those design elements.
The VMT Reduction Program updates the City’s UDC using the most recent research on VMT mitigation strategies. The UDC would help projects that have a significant VMT impact reduce the project’s VMT by implementing VMT-reducing project design features at the project site.
If the project results in a significant VMT impact even with the UDC, the developments would be required to further mitigate VMT impacts by making “fair share” payments into the bank to cover the cost of identified VMT reducing projects in the proposed VMT Reduction Program. The fee contribution would be calculated by analyzing the relationship between the excess VMT generated by the project compared to the City’s VMT threshold. The project would then be required to pay the calculated fee based on the excess VMT generated by the project. By virtue of collecting this fee as part of the mitigation bank, the City would be able to implement the proposed VMT mitigation projects. The proposed VMT mitigation projects for this program have been selected from infrastructure projects listed on local planning documents that are the highest performing (ranked) based on VMT reduction, connectivity, access and equity, safety, funding effectiveness, and feasibility of implementation.
Land use development projects subject to a CEQA VMT analysis that demonstrate VMT impact over the City’s threshold of significance are subject to VMT impact fees collected as part of the mitigation bank. Conversely, projects that demonstrate less than significant VMT impact are not subject to the VMT Reduction Program impact fees. The impact fee would only apply to projects that result in potentially significant VMT impacts under CEQA. Summarized in a list below is the process for determining VMT impacts and opportunities to mitigate VMT as part of the VMT Reduction Program:
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
4 Project VMT Screening Criteria – Projects screened from VMT analysis are presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact.
Detailed VMT Analysis – Projects that demonstrate a less than significant VMT impact do not require VMT mitigation.
Application of Urban Design Calculator – Projects that demonstrate a significant VMT impact can minimize VMT impact through the implementation of improved urban design through project design features.
Pay the VMT Mitigation Fee – Projects that demonstrate a significant VMT impact after implementation of project design features using the UDC can contribute to a VMT mitigation fee to offset project VMT above the City’s threshold. Payment of the VMT mitigation fee would serve as mitigation to reduce a project’s VMT impact to less than significant thresholds.
KEY PROGRAM FRAMEWORK DECISIONS
Throughout the development of the VMT Reduction Program, the City has worked with Fresno Area Express (FAX) and other stakeholders to determine appropriate structure for the Program, to evaluate various VMT quantification tools and mitigation options to assess the best fit for a defensible and consistent mitigation approach for development projects. The following key decisions, which resulted from the collaborative effort, have helped shape the direction of this VMT Reduction Program:
A VMT Reduction Program is preferable to the current approach of project-by-project mitigation, which requires each development project with significant VMT impact to conduct a lengthy and expensive Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to identify, analyze, negotiate, and coordinate implementation of VMT mitigation measures. Furthermore, without a coordinated VMT Reduction Program, these mitigation actions do not guarantee any consistency in the analysis and application of VMT mitigation projects.
The service area for the VMT Reduction Program should cover the entire city. The City’s UDC to provide opportunities for development projects that have a significant VMT impact to reduce their VMT impact by implementing VMT reducing project design features at the project site.
A mitigation bank is preferred over other mitigation techniques for maximization of VMT mitigation effectiveness and flexibility. A mitigation bank allows development projects of all sizes to pay a VMT mitigation fee that contributes to larger mitigation projects. A mitigation bank allows smaller development projects to contribute to more impactful VMT mitigation projects than would be feasible to implement on an ad hoc basis. Development of a VMT Reduction Program also has the added benefit of bringing investments to parts of the city that have been underserved instead of improvements just in the project
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
5 vicinity. In that regard, the VMT Reduction Program took into consideration various attributes such as equity, safety, access, and connectivity in prioritizing the list of VMT mitigation projects. Affordability of VMT pricing was a key consideration in developing the framework. Excessively high fees could hinder economic growth and housing development within the city and prompt developments to relocate to neighboring cities. This shift could have long-term adverse effects on the city’s economy and housing market. Additionally, imposing steep fees may drive developers to prepare project EIRs and override their VMT impacts as feasible mitigation measures may not be available or viable.
The mitigation fee for development projects under this program is based on a $ per VMT ($ per vehicle miles traveled) approach. The impact of each development project under SB 743 is primarily determined by the geographic location of the project and not by its land use type or size. VMT is calculated as the product of project-generated trips and their respective trip lengths. For example, a project situated near key destinations such as workplaces, schools, shopping centers, and entertainment venues will result in shorter trip lengths. In contrast, the same project located on the urban fringe, with limited surrounding development, will generate longer trip lengths. As such the project located near key destinations will have a lower VMT, and the urban fringe location will have a higher VMT. Although the land use type, project size, and trip generation rates remain identical, the project’s impact varies depending on its proximity to complementary land uses. Given that the same project can have different results/impacts based on its location under SB 743 and the impact of the project is measured in units of VMT, it was determined that $ per VMT would be an appropriate unit for this mitigation fee program. VMT reduction project selection for the VMT mitigation bank was based on existing local plans such as the Short-Range and Long-Range Transit Plans, Fresno COG RTP, Fresno Safe Route to Schools, Fresno Active Transportation Plan, Fresno County Regional Trails Plan, and Southern Blackstone Avenue Smart Mobility Plan.
The lifecycle of the fee and subsequent revaluation of fees for the VMT Reduction Program would be 5 years. This would allow for completed VMT mitigation projects to be removed and for new VMT mitigation projects to be added to the VMT Reduction Program. This 5-year life cycle would also be consistent with typical capital improvement plans prepared by the City.
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
6 LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Definition of Mitigation Fees
With the implementation of SB 743, the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (previously the Office of Planning and Research) guidance recommended that LOS no longer be considered a significant environmental impact and that VMT, a measure of the amount and distance traveled in automobile trips that are generated by a project regardless of congestion impact, is often the best metric for a transportation project’s impact. Before the passage of SB 743, cities and counties often constructed needed LOS-based operational improvements or charged impact fees that paid for the portion of the operational improvements made necessary by the project. However, with the passage of SB 743, these LOS-based operational improvements are no longer considered as mitigation for CEQA transportation impacts. Therefore, cities and counties are instituting new mitigation fees to fund VMT reducing infrastructure needed to mitigate development-related VMT impacts. If a local government has the power to approve or deny a project, then it also has the power to subject the development to conditions that mitigate CEQA transportation impacts due to the development.
A fee is a monetary exaction other than a tax or special assessment, whether established for a broad class of projects by legislation of general applicability or imposed on a specific project on an ad hoc basis, that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project (Government Code § 66000(b)). The legal requirements for enactment of a development impact fee program are set forth in Government Code §§ 66000– 66025 (also referred to as the “Mitigation Fee Act”), many of which were adopted as part of Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) and thus are often referred to as “AB 1600 requirements.” Nexus
The California Mitigation Fee Act codifies “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” as requirements for local agencies seeking to impose a fee as a condition of land development. For VMT mitigation fees to be collected under the VMT Reduction Program, there must be a “essential nexus” between the VMT Reduction Program and the reduction of VMT impacts associated with development projects. The VMT Reduction Program must also demonstrate “rough proportionality” between the fees collected under the VMT Reduction Program and the anticipated VMT impact associated with development projects.
Nexus Requirement
A mitigation impact fee is not a tax or special assessment. By definition, the fee is voluntary and must be reasonably and proportionally related to the cost of the service provided by the local agency. Furthermore, typically fees imposed on a development project need to be proportionate to the size (dwelling units/square footage) of the development. However, if a city or county can provide an explanation as to why size is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a development project, an alternative basis of calculating the fee needs to be developed. This fee should bear a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
7 development. Under SB 743, the nexus of a project’s requirement to pay a fee would only be triggered when a project has a significant VMT impact and is not able to mitigate its impact. As discussed previously, the extent of VMT impact is also a key factor in determining the fees. This is dependent on the project’s geographic location and its proximity to complementary land uses. As such, two similar sized projects located in different geographic locations are anticipated to have varying VMT impacts. Therefore, the project would be subject to paying a fee based on dollar amount per VMT instead of project size. This would help establish the appropriate nexus between the project’s impact and payment of fees.
Mitigation Fee Act
As referenced in the Berkeley Law Implementing SB 743 Policy Report (SB 743 Policy Report), August 2022, under the Mitigation Fee Act, an agency imposing a fee must document and support findings that:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee.
2. Identify the use of the fee, including
identifying any public facilities (defined
broadly to include “public
improvements, services, and
community amenities”) to be funded.
3. Determine the reasonable relationship
between the project type and the fee
use.
4. Determine the reasonable relationship
between the project type and the need
for the public facility to be funded.
5. Determine the reasonable relationship
between the cost (or relevant portion of
the cost) of the public facility or service to be funded and the amount of the fee, which cannot exceed the “estimated reasonable cost” of the facility or service.
These five steps meet the Government Code 66001 criteria as described in the Impact Fee Nexus Study Templates prepared by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley. The VMT mitigation bank project evaluation as described in the VMT Reduction Program Framework section provides further detail regarding these requirements and how it addresses level of service improvements that are required to satisfy Government Code 66016.5(a)(2). In addition to these substantive standards, the law requires agencies to adopt a proposed construction schedule or plan, establish accounts prior to fee assessment, and identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance at the time the fee is assessed, along with other accounting requirements.
VMT Reduction ProgramDevelopment Projects with VMT ImpactVMTMitigation FeeVMTMitigation Projects
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
8 Purpose of the Fee
The purpose of the VMT mitigation fee is to fund the costs associated with the implementation of the top 24 performing VMT mitigation projects identified in Appendix C and to allocate those costs to development projects that have a significant VMT impact within the city. The VMT mitigation fee does not include any urban design improvements related to VMT mitigation along the development project’s frontage, which will be the responsibility of individual development projects. The VMT mitigation fee can be applicable to all development with a significant VMT impact.
Use of the Fee
The VMT Reduction Program reviewed local planning documents to identify active transportation projects, transit projects, and other mobility-related projects that have potential to provide quantifiable reduction in VMT. The proposed VMT mitigation fee will be used to fund the top 24 ranking projects, listed in Appendix C, in the VMT Reduction Program.
Relationship Between Project Type and Fee Use
Development projects that have demonstrated a VMT impact over the significance thresholds established in the City’s VMT Guidelines will cause an increase to the City’s VMT. The fees collected from these development projects will be used to construct VMT mitigation projects that will serve as an offset or mitigate the VMT increases due to the projects.
The VMT mitigation fee calculations are based on the 24 most effective VMT mitigation projects within the proposed mitigation bank, which is based on a variety of evaluation and prioritization criteria set forth by the City.
Relationship Between Project Type and Need for Public Facility Development projects in areas that cannot be screened out of a detailed VMT analysis and are determined to have a significant VMT impact will cause an increase in citywide VMT. These projects are often located in suburban areas that are still developing and more distant from complementary land uses. VMT mitigation measures in these areas often will provide insufficient VMT mitigation or be cost prohibitive. The projects identified in the VMT Reduction Program are located citywide and therefore will provide an efficient and cost-effective way to reduce additional VMT resulting from the development projects. Development projects generate the need for VMT-reducing public facilities, services and amenities because of the increase in VMT that they cause above the threshold of significance.
Relationship Between Cost of Public Facility and Fee Collected The VMT mitigation fee would only be applicable to development projects that have been determined to have a significant VMT impact from a detailed VMT analysis. The VMT mitigation fee collected from the development projects with a significant VMT impact will fund only a portion of the VMT mitigation projects’ costs whereas the majority of the funding is derived from other funding sources. Therefore, the VMT mitigation fees collected from the development projects will never exceed the cost of the public facility. On the contrary, the VMT Reduction Program will
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
9 provide a cost-effective and streamlined methodology for mitigating VMT impacts of the development projects.
Additionality
Additionality under CEQA refers to the concept that investments made to mitigate environmental impacts should provide benefits that otherwise would not have occurred absent the mitigation program. While neither CEQA nor SB 743 explicitly refers to the term “additionality” as a statutory requirement, additionality considerations should form a core component of a mitigation bank monitoring program. Therefore, mitigation projects under the VMT Reduction Program are subject to additionality requirements. As such, mitigation projects generally should not include actions that would be reasonably expected to occur otherwise.
As previously indicated, VMT mitigation projects were sourced from existing planning documents from the City and may face challenges in the context of additionality as some of these transportation projects may already be fully funded.
However, if the VMT Reduction Program can demonstrate that VMT mitigation fees would move the VMT mitigation projects forward in time, increase the VMT measures’ capacity to reduce VMT, displace funds for a later use in other VMT mitigating investments, or otherwise ensure further net VMT reductions, then the VMT reduction can be considered as additional. Figure 1 below is a visual diagram illustrating how projects would meet the additionality criteria to be included as part of the VMT mitigation program.
Figure 1: Additionality of VMT Mitigation Projects
Source: Implementing SB 743, Berkeley Law Policy Report, August 2022.
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
10 Project Specific Additionality
Based on the SB 743 Berkeley Law Policy Report, VMT mitigation banks can consider two basic approaches to tracking additionality in the selection and implementation of VMT mitigation investments.
The first approach is at a project-specific level, where prior to funding a VMT mitigation project, the bank administrator determines based on the RTP and other planning documents whether the project can be considered additional.
The second approach is at the programmatic level, where the program administrator reviews funds received and spent, VMT impacts and reductions, mitigation investments supported, and the relation of the investment cohort to the applicable RTPs to determine whether investments were additional relative to an expected baseline scenario for the same period.
A project-specific level approach was selected for the City’s VMT Reduction Program. Each VMT reducing project in the VMT Reduction Program was analyzed to ensure that mitigation projects were not already fully funded. The funds from the VMT Reduction Program will provide a portion of funding (e.g., local match) and therefore will assist or accelerate the completion of these measures.
ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK
This section establishes the administrative framework and key roles for implementing the VMT Reduction Program.
Bank Sponsor
The City is the bank sponsor and will be responsible for the planning, management, and operation of the VMT Reduction Program and will ensure sufficient funds are collected to implement the VMT mitigation projects. The City will also be responsible for managing the funds of the VMT Reduction Program and implementation of VMT reducing projects. As mitigation projects are funded, the corresponding projects will be removed from the project list.
Bank Service Areas
The VMT Reduction Program will use the city limits as the service area. The city limits may be readjusted in the future, and the VMT Reduction Program would still be applicable if the boundaries are extended. The bank service area would be applicable to all development projects that fall within the jurisdiction of the City.
Staffing
It is anticipated that existing City of Fresno staff would assume the following responsibilities:
Providing information to agencies responsible for implementing VMT mitigation projects on behalf of the program.
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
11 Preparing and presenting annual program reports, including fees collected from individual projects.
Monitoring implementation of VMT mitigation projects for consistency with the VMT Reduction Program.
Funds have been included in the Program for procurement of a consultant to prepare the Nexus Study update after five years, consistent with the Mitigation Fee Act.
Additional administrative support is required to provide public services such as education, marketing, and incentives to increase the use of the city’s transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, which will contribute directly to the reduction of VMT, an express goal of the VMT Reduction Program. The following staffing and resources are included in furtherance of the purpose for which the fee would be collected:
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Coordinator ($60,000/yr) – This new staff position housed with the City of Fresno would have the responsibility of developing and administering TDM Programs (trip reduction programs) in partnership with Fresno residents, employers, and other community groups for the purpose of reducing VMT citywide, an express goal of the VMT Reduction Program. Trip Reduction Programs which include public education and marketing, commuter information services, transportation coordination, on- site or on-line transit sales and guaranteed ride home services are demonstrated to increase the use of alternative modes of transportation, thus contributing to reduction vehicle miles traveled citywide.
Transit Marketing Program ($50,000/yr) - This program would be administered by the TDM Coordinator in support of public education and marketing to encourage use of alternative modes of transportation, such as transit, bicycle, or pedestrian travel. The funds may be used for development of marketing materials, hosting of promotional events, buydown of transit fares, providing guaranteed ride home services, collection of marketing data, and more. This program is anticipated to increase utilization of alternative modes of transportation in furtherance of a citywide reduction in VMT.
The CAPCOA Handbook, 2021, 2024 identifies trip reduction programs such as the aforementioned as a valid measure for reducing vehicle miles traveled.1
1 The CAPCOA Handbook states, “Most of the transportation measures quantified in this Handbook aim to reduce VMT and encourage mode shifts from single-occupancy vehicles to shared (ie transit) modes or active (i.e. bicycle) modes of transportation. This can be accomplished by trip reduction or incentive programs…” In addition, the CAPCOA Handbook cites a policy brief summarizing the results of employer-based trip reduction studies which concluded that these programs reduce total commute VMT for employers at participating work sites by 4-6% (Boarnet, et al, 2014).
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
12 Estimated Costs for Administering the Program
Based on City salary information, the staffing described above is estimated to cost approximately $ 60,000 per year to administer the VMT Reduction Program (2024 dollars) plus an additional $50,000 per year for TDM marketing. These costs will be included in the cost calculation for mitigation credits for up to 5 years (for a total of $650,000).
Mitigation Action Implementation
When a VMT mitigation project has been fully funded and constructed, it will be removed from the Capital Improvement Plan. Unless otherwise specified, VMT mitigation projects will have a 5-year implementation timeline. The 5-year implementation timeline is intended to meet the mitigation obligations related to VMT increases above the City’s threshold and align with the horizon year of current regional planning efforts. However, the City can adjust the timeline for implementation of VMT mitigation projects based on funding availability through the VMT Reduction Program and availability of other funds. Annual progress reports will be prepared to provide transparency on VMT mitigation projects and ensure that performance standards are achieved.
Monitoring and Reporting
The VMT Reduction Program staff will monitor the timing of initiation of the VMT mitigation projects as well as annual monitoring of the progress of each VMT mitigation project. Development of performance metrics will be an initial responsibility.
Program data will be collected to support the development of an Annual Report that should include the following topics:
Cash on hand for each VMT mitigation project
Status of each VMT mitigation project
Reporting on performance standards for each VMT mitigation project Any additional VMT mitigation project under consideration for addition to the mitigation bank
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Assembly Bill 602 (AB 602), also known as the Development Fees: Impact Fee Nexus Study Act, was signed into law in September 2021. AB 602 requires local agencies that conduct an impact fee nexus study to follow specific standards and practices, including but not limited to: (1) the adoption of an impact fee nexus study prior to the adoption of an associated development fee, (2) identify and explain the existing level of service for each public facility and why the new level of service is necessary, and (3) calculate a fee levied on housing development projects to be proportionate to the square footage of the proposed units, or make specific findings explaining why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate the fees.
AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the California Government Code. Pursuant California Government Code 66016.5 (a)(1), an impact fee nexus study is required to be adopted before the adoption of an
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
13 associated development fee. Additionally, California Government Code 66016.5 (a)(6) requires that large jurisdictions adopt a capital improvement plan (CIP) as part of the nexus study. For nexus study purposes, the CIP shall indicate the approximate location, size, time of availability, estimates of costs for all facilities or improvements to be financed with the fees, and indicate any alternative (non-fee) funding sources to complete a project. The sources, amounts and timing of funding should also be referenced in the jurisdiction’s five-year findings regarding the use of funds. In the event that fees are accumulated over more than five years to fund capital projects, the CIP should include “Reserve to Complete” project account with a general description of both the project and funding plan to indicate the future use of these fee funds.
To satisfy the CIP requirements as part of the nexus study, the CIP for the VMT Reduction Program is included in the VMT Reduction Program Framework section of the report.
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
14 VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM FRAMEWORK
The City’s VMT Reduction Program was designed to provide a flexible, streamlined, and cost- effective approach to mitigate VMT impacts of land development projects. The VMT Reduction Program includes a two-step approach where:
The development projects have an opportunity to reduce or mitigate VMT impacts by improving project design elements using the City’s UDC. Use of the UDC will help improve development project designs by incorporating VMT-reducing features and more effective design elements.
Improving designs of individual development projects will help build better communities. Also, use of the UDC will reduce the magnitude of a project’s VMT impact and as such the project’s VMT mitigation fees.
If the project is unable to completely mitigate its VMT impact using the UDC, the project would pay into the VMT Reduction Program based on the magnitude of the remaining impact. The VMT mitigation fees are unit/credit-based (dollars per VMT reduction) and therefore provide flexibility.
Figure 2 shows a flowchart of the VMT mitigation progress under the VMT Reduction Program.
URBAN DESIGN CALCULATOR
The UDC is a tool that was previously developed by the City and was updated as part of the VMT Reduction Program to allow development projects that have a significant VMT impact to implement VMT-reducing project design features. This would promote the use of active transportation and transit modes at the project site, while discouraging the use of vehicles. The goal of the UDC is to encourage developers to maximize the implementation of known and quantifiable urban design features that reduce VMT within the project site before having to contribute to a VMT mitigation fee. The VMT reduction categories included in the UDC are based on strategies provided in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Handbook (CAPCOA Handbook) transportation section. For purposes of organization and calculation the VMT mitigation measures presented in the UDC are separated into four main categories: Land Use, Design, Transit, and Parking Pricing/Management. The mitigation measures of the categories are summarized in the following list:
Land Use
○ Increase Residential Density
○ Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing
○ Increase Job Density
○ Improve Street Connectivity
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
15 Figure 2: VMT Reduction Program Process for Development Projects
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
16 Design
○ Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement
○ Expand Bikeway Network
○ Implement Conventional Carshare Program
○ Implement Electric Carshare Program
○ Implement Pedal (Non-Electric) Bikeshare Program
○ Implement Electric Bikeshare Program
○ Implement Scooter Share Program
Transit
○ Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments
Parking Pricing/Management
○ Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure
○ Limit Residential Parking Supply
○ Unbundle Residential Parking Costs from Property Cost Detailed information on the inputs required, assumptions, and methodologies used to calculate the VMT reduction from the project design features in the UDC is provided in Appendix A. The UDC may be updated from time to time to incorporate best practices for site-specific VMT-reduction.
MITIGATION BANK PROJECTS
Project Selection
The list of VMT mitigation bank projects to be funded by the VMT Reduction Program was based on existing local planning documents for active transportation, transit-related infrastructure, capital improvement projects, and other mobility-related projects suggested by project stakeholders. These local planning documents from the Fresno area include the following:
FAX Transit Projects in the Short-Range Transit Plan
FAX Transit Projects in the Long-Range Transit Plan
Fresno COG Regional Transportation Plan
Fresno Safe Routes to School Action Plan
Fresno Active Transportation Plan
Southern Blackstone Avenue Smart Mobility Plan
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
17 Evaluation and Prioritization Criteria
Projects from the above-mentioned
sources were reviewed for their
potential to reduce VMT. Projects with
potential to reduce VMT were
compiled into a master list for the
VMT Reduction Program. The projects
were evaluated and prioritized by
each project’s ability to achieve the
desired goals and objectives of the
VMT Reduction Program.
As referenced in the Berkeley Law
Implementing SB 743 Policy Report,
each mitigation program is required to
develop a set of criteria to prioritize
and deliver the most locally
appropriate, cost-effective, and
publicly beneficial set of mitigation
projects. These criteria, in addition to
VMT reduced, can include other considerations such as equity implications, access, connectivity, safety and mode shift, funding, and feasibility of implementation. Different weights can be assigned to these criteria based on their importance in achieving the City’s goals and desired outcomes for the VMT Reduction Program.
The following section describes the list of factors that were utilized to prioritize the projects identified under the VMT Reduction Program based on the goals and objectives set forth by the City and its stakeholders.
VMT Reduction
VMT reduction is the main objective of the VMT
Reduction Program. As such, when evaluating the
priority for investment from the master list of selected projects, 50 percent of a project’s ranking is
determined by its contribution to VMT reduction.
A project’s potential to reduce VMT was estimated
using the CAPCOA Handbook. The CAPCOA Handbook
includes assumptions and methodologies to estimate
VMT reduction for each VMT mitigation strategy. The
methodologies in the CAPCOA Handbook have been
adapted to local conditions using local data from
various sources such as the Fresno COG Activity-Based
Model (ABM), Census/American Community Survey, and local factors identified in the CAPCOA CAPCOA VMT Reduction Measures•T-18) Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement•T-20) Expand Bikeway Network•T-25) Extend Transit Network Coverage or Hours•T-26) Increase Transit Frequnecy•T-27) Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments 50%10%10%10%10%10%Evaluation and Prioritization WeightsVMT ReductionConnectivityAccess and EquitySafetyFundingFeasibility
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
18 Handbook. The VMT reduction for each of these projects was evaluated using the following CAPCOA VMT mitigation strategies.
T-18) Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement. The Pedestrian Network Improvement CAPCOA measure is applicable to any VMT mitigation project that will increase the sidewalk coverage to improve pedestrian access. Installing sidewalks to streets with no sidewalks or sidewalks on one side of the street has been proven to encourage people to walk instead of drive, which reduces VMT. The percent reduction in VMT for each VMT mitigation project from the local community can be as high as 6.4 percent and is based on the existing length of sidewalks within the community and future length of sidewalks within the community.
Quantifying the VMT reduction potential from this mitigation action involves estimating the existing sidewalk length in the study area, estimating the sidewalk length in the study area with the implementation of the VMT mitigation project, and applying parameters obtained from published industry research. The parameters used here are:
Elasticity of household VMT with respect to the ratio of sidewalks-to-streets2 The estimated percentage reduction in VMT was multiplied by the baseline passenger-vehicle VMT within the study area to yield an estimate of the total VMT reduced.
T-20) Expand Bikeway Network. The Expand Bikeway Network CAPCOA measure is applicable to any VMT mitigation project that adds to/improves a bicycle network with Class I, II, or IV bicycle infrastructure. Providing bicycle infrastructure improves biking conditions in the area and increases access to and from transit hubs. This encourages a mode shift from vehicles to bicycles, which reduces VMT. The percentage of VMT reduction for each VMT mitigation project from the local community can be as high as 0.5 percent and is based on the existing bikeway miles in the community and future bikeway miles in the community.
Quantifying the VMT reduction potential from this mitigation action involves estimating the existing bikeway length in the study area, estimating the bikeway length in the study area with the implementation of the VMT mitigation project, and applying parameters from published industry research or the Fresno COG ABM. The parameters used here are:
Bicycle mode share in Fresno (Fresno COG ABM)
Vehicle mode share in Fresno (Fresno COG ABM)
Average one-way bicycle trip length in Fresno (Fresno COG ABM)
2 Frank, L., M. Greenwald, S. Kavage, and A. Devlin. 2011. An Assessment of Urban Form and Pedestrian and Transit Improvements as an Integrated GHG Reduction Strategy. WSDOT Research Report WA-RD 765.1, Washington State Department of Transportation. April. Available:
www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/765.1.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
19 Average one-way vehicle trip length in Fresno (Fresno COG ABM) Elasticity of bike commuters with respect to bikeway miles per 10,000 population3 The estimated percentage reduction in VMT is multiplied by the baseline passenger-vehicle VMT within the study area to yield an estimate of the total VMT reduced.
T-25) Extend Transit Network Coverage or Hours. The Extend Transit Network Coverage or Hours CAPCOA measure is applicable to any VMT mitigation project that expands the local transit network by adding or modifying existing transit service or extending the operation hours to enhance transit service. Extending transit network coverage gives more people access to alternative modes of travel.
Alternatively, starting services earlier/extending services to later hours can also offer more flexible times of travel and accommodate those workers that work non-traditional shifts. Greater transit geographic coverage and longer transit operational hours provide greater access and flexibility that encourages use of transit, which reduces VMT. The percent reduction in VMT for each VMT mitigation project from the local community can be as high as 4.6 percent and is based on the existing transit service miles/hours and future transit service miles/hours.
Quantifying the VMT reduction potential from the mitigation action involves estimating the existing total transit service miles in Fresno, estimating the total transit service miles in Fresno after implementation of the VMT mitigation project, and applying parameters from published industry research or the Fresno COG ABM. The parameters used here are:
Transit mode share in Fresno (Fresno COG ABM)
Elasticity of transit demand with respect to service miles4 Statewide mode shift factor (Fresno COG ABM)
Ratio of vehicle trip reduction to VMT
The estimated percentage reduction in VMT is multiplied by the citywide passenger-vehicle VMT to yield an estimate of the total VMT reduced.
T-26) Increase Transit Service Frequency. The Increase Transit Frequency CAPCOA measure is applicable to any VMT mitigation project that increases transit frequency on one or more transit lines serving the community. Increased frequency reduces the waiting and travel time for passengers, which improves the experience and attractiveness of transit. This increases the mode
3 Pucher, J., and Buehler, R. 2011. Analysis of Bicycling Trends and Policies in Large North American Cities:
Lessons for New York. March. Available: http://www.utrc2.org/sites/default/files/pubs/analysisbike- final_0.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.
4 Handy, S., K. Lovejoy, M. Boarnet, and S. Spears. 2013. Impacts of Transit Service Strategies on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. October. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
06/Impacts_of_Transit_Service_Strategies_on_Passenger_Vehicle_Use_and_Greenhouse_Gas_Emissio ns_Policy_Brief.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
20 shift from single occupancy vehicles to transit, which reduces VMT. The percent reduction in VMT for each VMT mitigation project from the local community can be as high as 11.3 percent and is based on the percent increase in transit frequency and percentage of transit lines in the community receiving the improved frequency.
Quantifying the VMT reduction potential from the mitigation action involves estimating the percent increase in transit frequency, estimating the level of implementation, and applying parameters from published industry research or the Fresno COG ABM. The parameters used here are:
Elasticity of transit ridership with respect to frequency of service3 Transit mode share in Fresno (Fresno COG ABM)
Vehicle mode share in Fresno (Fresno COG ABM)
Statewide mode shift factor (Fresno COG ABM)
The estimated percentage reduction in VMT is multiplied by the citywide passenger-vehicle VMT to yield an estimate of the total VMT reduced.
T-27) Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments. The Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments CAPCOA measure is applicable to any VMT mitigation project that incorporates roadway infrastructure improvements to improve transit travel times and reliability.
Providing transit supportive roadway treatments such as transit signal priority, queue jumps, etc. improves the travel time and travel time reliability of buses. The improvement to travel times and travel time reliability promotes the mode shift from single occupancy vehicles to transit, which reduces VMT. The percent reduction in VMT for each VMT mitigation from the local community can be as high as 0.6 percent and is based on the percentage of transit lines in the community receiving the transit supportive roadway treatments.
Quantifying the VMT reduction potential from the mitigation action involves estimating the percent of transit routes in the city that receive transit-supportive roadway treatments and applying parameters from published industry research or the Fresno COG ABM. The parameters used here are:
Percent change in transit travel time due to treatments5 Elasticity of transit ridership with respect to transit travel time4 Transit mode share in Fresno (Fresno COG ABM)
5 Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2007. Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide. Available:
https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/tcrp118brt_practitioners_kittleson.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
21 Vehicle mode share in Fresno (Fresno COG ABM)
Statewide mode shift factor (Fresno COG ABM)
The estimated percentage reduction in VMT is multiplied by the citywide passenger-vehicle VMT to yield an estimate of the total VMT reduced.
Connectivity
Enhancing connectivity was identified as an additional
objective of the VMT Reduction Program. Enhancing
connectivity allows more people within the community,
especially those with limited mobility, to access
essential services and economic opportunities. VMT
mitigation projects that meet these objectives are given higher priority for investment. As such, when evaluating the priority for investment from the master list of
selected projects, 10 percent of a project’s ranking is determined by its contribution to enhancing
connectivity. Under the connectivity component,
projects were evaluated by a modified version of the
City’s Active Transportation Project Prioritization Tool to include transit projects. The connectivity scoring for
each of these projects was evaluated using the following components:
Connectivity to Existing Network – Prioritizing VMT mitigation projects that fill a network gap between active transportation facilities or transit networks creates a more interconnected network, which allows for more regional trips to be made using alternative modes of transportation.
Connectivity to Schools – Prioritizing VMT mitigation projects that provide direct access to K-12 schools increases the connectivity for children and teenagers. Better connectivity to schools allows children and teenagers with limited mobility options to walk, bike, and use transit to travel to and from school without vehicular trips from parents. Connectivity to Public Transit/Bicycle Lane Network – Prioritizing VMT mitigation projects that are located within 0.5 mile of public transportation/bicycle networks allows for enhanced connectivity between both travel modes, allowing for better first-mile last-mile connections. Connectivity to Parks – Prioritizing VMT mitigation projects that are located near existing parks increases the accessibility of parks for all members of the community, especially those with limited mobility. Better connectivity to parks allows the promotion of healthier communities as residents can take more active forms of transportation for recreational trips. Connectivity to Key Destinations – Prioritizing VMT mitigation projects that are located near a grocery store, health provider, civic center, large employment center, or other regional Connectivity•C-1) Connectivity to Existing Network•C-2) Connectivity to Schools•C-3) Connectivity to Public Transit•C-4) Connectivity to Parks•C-5) Connectivity to Key Destinations•C-6) Connectivity to Future Network•C-7) Regional Significance•C-8) Place Type
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
22 destination increases the community’s access to essential city services and opportunities for employment.
Connectivity to Future Network – Prioritizing VMT mitigation projects that fill a network gap between an existing and funded near term proposed facility creates a more interconnected future network, which allows for more future regional trips to be made using alternative modes of transportation.
Regional Significance – Prioritizing VMT mitigation projects that provide connectivity within
0.25 mile of a regional network in neighboring jurisdictions creates greater access to adjacent jurisdictions and integration with regional networks, which allows for more regional trips to be made using alternative modes of transportation.
Place Type – Prioritizing VMT mitigation projects that are in developed areas with anchoring locations will support higher levels of non-motorized travel and transit use than areas that are still developing.
Appendix B shows the scoring and evaluation of connectivity for the list of mitigation bank projects in the VMT Reduction Program.
Access and Equity
Improving access and equity to disadvantaged
populations was identified as an additional objective of the VMT Reduction Program. Improved access reduces
barriers for people with disabilities in the existing
transportation system. These projects also provide
needed investments in communities that have
traditionally been subjected to underinvestment and
usually face higher burdens of pollution. VMT mitigation projects that meet this objective are given a higher priority for investment. As such, when evaluating the priority for investment from the master list of projects, a 10 percent weight was assigned to a project’s ranking to increasing access to equity populations. Under the access and equity component, both transit and non-motorized projects were evaluated by a modified version of the City’s Active Transportation Project Prioritization Tool. The access and equity scoring for each of these projects were evaluated using the following components:
Accessibility – Prioritizing VMT mitigation projects in areas that are identified as barriers in the City’s ADA Transition Plan and by complaints from a person with disabilities can allow for investments to be made in accordance with maximizing accessibility for all people. Equity – Prioritizing VMT mitigation projects in areas located in or near census tracts that are considered as disadvantaged by CalEnviroScreen can alleviate inequalities and prioritize investments in historically underinvested communities, especially in areas that face higher levels of pollution burden.
Access and Equity•A-1) Accessibility•A-2) Equity•A-3) Community Identified Priority•A-4) Vehicle Ownership
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
23 Community Identified Priority – VMT mitigation projects in areas that are identified as high priority in existing plans, community petitions, and part of the community planning process can allow for investments to be made in accordance with the needs of the community. Vehicle Ownership – Prioritizing VMT mitigation projects in areas that are identified to have low vehicle ownership can allow for investments to be made in areas that have limited mobility options, which will increase a community’s access to essential services and employment opportunities.
By factoring access and equity into the evaluation and prioritization criteria, the VMT Reduction Program will reduce barriers to access transit and active transportation facilities. This will help in improving the citywide level of service through implementation of such projects, thereby satisfying the requirements under Government Code 66016.5(a)(2). Appendix B shows the scoring and evaluation of access and equity for the list of mitigation bank projects in the VMT Reduction Program.
Safety
Increasing safety was identified as an additional
objective of the VMT Reduction Program. Increasing
safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders will increase attractiveness of these modes, causing a
mode shift from vehicular trips which in turn will
reduce VMT. VMT mitigation projects that improve
safety are given a higher priority for investment. As
such, when evaluating the priority for investment from
the master list of projects, a 10 percent weight is
assigned for a project’s contribution to increasing
safety. Under the safety component, projects were evaluated by a modified version of the City’s Active Transportation Project Prioritization Tool for traffic control, mode shift, and user comfort.
The safety scoring for each of these projects was evaluated using the following components:
Bicycle or Pedestrian Collisions – VMT mitigation projects that can provide counter measures, as determined by the Local Roadway Safety Manual, in areas with bicycle and pedestrian collisions can improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists and can increase the attractiveness of walking and biking.
Project Type – VMT mitigation projects that create controlled crossings reduce barriers for alternatives modes of transportation and increase the likelihood of mode shift. Similarly, increasing geographic coverage of bikeway facilities or transit coverage will induce mode shift from vehicular traffic.
Potential for Mode Shift and Greenhouse Gas Reduction – VMT mitigation projects that are adjacent to corridors with high average daily traffic have higher probability and potential to cause mode shift and reduce vehicular traffic and VMT.
Safety•T-1) Bicycle or Pedestrian Collisions•T-2) Project Type•T-3) Potential for Mode Shift and GHG Reduction•T-4) Local Efficiency: Population Density
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
24 Location Efficiency: Population Density – Prioritizing VMT mitigation projects in areas with a higher population density has a higher likelihood of supporting higher levels of non-motorized travel and transit use than areas that are lower density.
Appendix B shows the scoring and evaluation of safety for the list of mitigation bank projects in the VMT Reduction Program.
Funding
In addition to the magnitude of VMT reduction provided by each VMT mitigation project, the VMT reduction cost
effectiveness was identified as an additional consideration when determining project priority. VMT mitigation projects that have a higher VMT reduction per $100k spent were
given priority over less cost-effective VMT mitigation
projects. Prioritizing VMT mitigation projects with higher cost effectiveness allows for maximization of VMT
reduction while minimizing the cost of implementation.
Identification of cost-effective VMT reduction projects will reduce overall program costs and, therefore, burden on development projects, while achieving desired VMT reduction goals. As such, when evaluating the priority for investment from the master list of projects, a 10 percent weight was assigned to the VMT reduction cost effectiveness.
Appendix B shows the scoring and evaluation of funding availability for the list of mitigation bank projects in the VMT Reduction Program.
Feasibility
The feasibility of implementation for each VMT
mitigation project was identified as an additional
consideration when determining project priority. VMT
mitigation projects that are regarded as feasible are
generally easier to implement and have a higher
likelihood of being completed in a timely manner and
therefore begin contributing to VMT reductions within a reasonable time frame. As such, a 10 percent weight was assigned to the feasibility of implementation. The master list of projects was submitted to FAX and the City Public Works Department to evaluate the feasibility of implementation. The master list of selected projects was separated into three categories: feasible, probably feasible, and infeasible. VMT mitigation projects under the feasible category were given the greatest priority, while the probably feasible category was given slightly higher priority over infeasible projects, which received the lowest priority.
Appendix B shows the scoring and evaluation of feasibility of implementation for the list of mitigation bank projects in the VMT Reduction Program.
Feasibility•Feasible•Probably Feasible•Infeasible
High VMT Reduction Cost EffectivenessLow VMT Reduction Cost Effectiveness
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
25 List of Prioritized Projects
Based on the above evaluation and prioritization criteria, a list of 24 VMT mitigation projects were shortlisted from the master list of projects. The following Figure 3 shows the location of the shortlisted projects included in the VMT Reduction Program. Table A lists the shortlisted projects included in the VMT Reduction Program. Appendix C shows the master list of VMT mitigation projects included in the VMT Reduction Program. The first 5 projects listed are citywide TDM projects and not specifically located on the map. The purpose of these projects is to increase the utilization of the transit, bicycle and pedestrian improvements proposed in Projects 6-24. The TDM Coordinator and the TDM Marketing Program provide administrative support (see Staffing and Program Administration on page 11). The remaining 3 items are described below and are included in furtherance of the purpose for which the fee would be collected:
Mobile Ticketing and Trip Planning App – Mobility as a Service (MAAS) trip making and mobile ticketing software, including fare validation equipment installed on buses. This software and on-bus equipment enables transit riders to easily plan local trips, integrate various transportation options, learn about new routes and services, and pay fares from smartphones. This component of the program is anticipated to facilitate increased ridership which will contribute to a reduction in vehicle miles traveled citywide. 6 Bicycle/Pedestrian Trip Trackers – These are devices that count the number of bicycle and pedestrian trips and would help the City collect data on use of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, leading to more effective planning of future bicycle and pedestrian facilities so that multi-modal transportation can be further increased citywide, thus reducing vehicle miles traveled. They would be installed in key locations along multi-purpose trails in the City of Fresno.7
Intermodal Signage – This program would provide street level signage to help users navigate the transit, bicycle and pedestrian transportation networks within the city of Fresno to facilitate easier travel, transfers and multi-modal commuting, which is anticipated to facilitate increased use of multi-modal transportation options, thus contributing to a reduction in vehicle miles traveled citywide. 8
6 The CAPCOA Handbook (2024) documents under Transportation Measures T-7 (Commute Trip Reduction Marketing) and T-23 (Community Based Travel Planning) that travel planning and marketing services can provide a 2.3-4% reduction in VMT.
7 The CAPCOA Handbook (2024) documents that monitoring is an important aspect of trip reduction programs (see T-6, Commute Trip Reduction Programs, mandatory implementation and marketing) and when combined with other trip reduction measures, can collectively contribute up to a 26% reduction in VMT.
Bicycle and pedestrian trip trackers will help monitor changes in travel behavior being incentivized by the City’s Trip Reduction Programs.
8 The CAPCOA Handbook (2024) documents under Transportation Measures T18 (Pedestrian Network Improvements) and T-20 (Expand Bikeway Network) that signage is an important component of improved bicycle infrastructure, which can contribute to a 0.5% reduction in VMT.
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
26 Figure 3: VMT Mitigation Project Locations
Project ID
Map
Number Project Name Street Name From To Project Description Project
Category Project Cost*
VMT
Reduction
Transportation Demand Management Projects
1 Mobile Ticketing and Trip Planning App Citywide Mobile Ticketing Trip Planning App TDM 2,500,000 2 Transit Marketing Program Citywide Transit Marketing Program TDM 500,000 3 Transportation Demand Management CoordinatorCitywide Transportation Demand Management CoordinatorTDM 525,960 4 Bike/Pedestrian Trip Trackers Citywide Bike/Ped Trip Trackers TDM 750,000 5 Intermodal Signage Citywide
Intermodal Signage to connect transit and
bicycle/pedestrian networks TDM 1,250,000
Transit Projects
T96 6 Frequency enhancement-Route 39 Clinton Ave
Route Enhancement: Three new buses for 15 Minute
Frequency on Route 39 Transit 4,500,000 1,311
T39 7 Accessibility Improvements-Route 34 Southern Industrial Area Route Extension: 52 new ADA compliant stops for
Southern Industrial service expansion-Route 34 Transit 1,700,000 1,041 T102 8 New route-Bullard Ave Bullard Ave Fresno State
New Route: Four new buses and 72 new stops for Bullard
Ave Crosstown Route Transit 8,340,000 1,143
T126 9 New route-Church Ave Church Ave
New Route: Four new buses and 68 new stops for Church
Avenue Crosstown Service Transit 8,200,000 1,145 T130 10 New route-Willow Ave Willow Ave Shields Clovis Community College New Route: Four new buses and 68 new stops for service
on Willow Avenue from Shields and Clovis Community
College Transit 8,200,000 939
T47 11 Route Extension, Route 45 Ashlan Ave
Route Extension: 10 new stops to increase service on
Route 45 (Note: the 2 buses have already been
purchased; the cost of the stop improvements is still
needed) Transit 325,000 656
T42 12 Route enhancement-Route 38 Cedar Ave Herndon Jensen Route Enhancement on Route 38 Cedar Ave Transit Signal
Priority - Adaptive Signal Control on Cedar from Herndon to Jensen Transit 13,300,000 49
T45 13 Service Improvement, Route 32 First Street
Route Enhancement, Frequency : Six new buses to
increase service on Route 32 Transit 9,000,000 1,311 Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects
B17 14 Priority Bikeway Network
Along Herndon No 39 Canal (section on E Shields Ave)
to Mill No 36 Canal (section along E McKinley Ave) to N Clovis Ave N Palm Ave justnorth of E ShieldsAve Priority Bikeway Network/Midtown Trail Bike 14,360,800 131 B38 15 Southern Blackstone Improvements Southern Blackstone Avenue Smart Mobility StrategyDakota Avenue Highway 180 Class IV Bikeway Bike 53,000,000 15 PED-SA5 16 Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridor First Street Dakota Avenue Ventura Avenue Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridors Pedestrian 5,000,000 311 PED-PAA1 17 Pedestrian Activity Areas Downtown Fresno South of Divisadero Street Northeast of Highway 99, Northwest of Highway 41Pedestrian Activity Areas Pedestrian 12,281,903 744 PED-UN14 18 Underserved Neighborhood North Avenue Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Pedestrian 761,400 0.2 PED-SA8 19 Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridor Kings Canyon Road/Cesar Chavez Blvd Cedar Avenue Clovis Avenue Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridors Pedestrian 2,200,000 392.7 PED-UN7 20 Underserved Neighborhood Florence Avenue Chestnut Balderas Elementary School Underserved Neighborhoods Pedestrian 1,000,000 0.1 PED-PAA2 21 Pedestrian Activity Areas Tower District - Olive Avenue Palm Avenue Van Ness Avenue Pedestrian Activity Areas Pedestrian 4,038,063 36 PED-UN19 22 Underserved Neighborhood Yosemite Middle School Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Pedestrian 896,904 6 PED-PAA4 23 Pedestrian Activity Areas Blackstone Avenue/Abby Street Divisadero Street Shaw Avenue Pedestrian Activity Areas Pedestrian 14,265,555 591 PED-UN17 24 Underserved Neighborhood Scandinavian Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Pedestrian 1,336,020 0.2 Notes
*This is the total project cost. However, the cost considered to develop the VMT fees accounted for funding available from other sources. This funding was taken out from the total project cost to calculate the fees.
Table A: VMT Reduction Program Projects
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\Flowcharts and Tables\Project List.xlsx\Table A (9/8/2025)
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
28 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Based on the California Health and Safety Code 53559.1 (g) and 53559.1 (h), the City of Fresno is considered a Large Jurisdiction. As such, a CIP must be adopted as part of the nexus study. A total of 24 projects were identified and prioritized for funding under the VMT Reduction Program. The list of projects included in the CIP along with the unfunded cost is included in Appendix D. The list of projects is broken down into three subsections. The first subsection (Projects 1 to 5) are citywide TDM projects. The second subsection (Projects 6 to 13) are transit projects, while the third subsection (Projects 14 to 24) are bicycle/pedestrian projects. Appendix D also shows the approximate location, size, and estimated costs for the facilities to be funded with the VMT mitigation fee. The CIP also includes an approximate time for facilities to be funded over five years.
As such, the CIP programs impact fee revenues for the proposed VMT mitigation projects for a five year period. However, the City anticipates that overall project completion will occur beyond the initial 5 year period.. Therefore, the CIP includes a “Reserve to Complete” project account with a general description of both the project and funding plan to indicate the future use of these unencumbered fee funds.
To develop the CIP, x the total unfunded expenditures for the list of 24 projects must be calculated.
Additionally, the CIP also needs to determine the approximate revenue that will be collected annually over the next five years though the VMT Reduction Program. Following is a brief description of how the revenue and expenditures were determined over the next five years to develop the CIP.
Revenue
The revenue projections are based on the anticipated future residential and non-residential development projects that are located in the City and the City of Sphere of Influence from the year 2026 to 2030 (next 5 years). The expected revenue is calculated based on the future VMT per capita and VMT per employee growth above the City’s VMT thresholds from development projects that are anticipated to generate VMT that exceeds the City’s VMT threshold. Development located in areas of the City that are low VMT zones are excluded from revenue projections as development projects in those areas are anticipated to have less than significant VMT impacts pursuant to the screening criteria in the City’s VMT Thresholds and will therefore not be subject to the VMT Mitigation Fee.
The overall growth for residential and non-residential projects in areas that are not located in low VMT zones was estimated using the Fresno COG Activity Based Transportation Model (ABM). The Fresno COG ABM provides growth projections over 27 years starting with a base year in 2019.
Therefore, the overall growth from the Fresno COG ABM was divided by 27 to develop average annual growth within these zones. Also, since each of these VMT zones vary in VMT profile, the anticipated VMT impact and therefore, fees to be collected from development projects was accordingly accounted for. In addition, the expected revenue from the residential development was adjusted to meet the City’s annual estimated household growth of 1,800. The VMT overage from these development projects was multiplied by the VMT Reduction Program fee ($295) to calculate the overall revenue that will be collected from such projects. Table B below is a summary of the annual anticipated VMT Reduction Program revenue collected from development projects.
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
29 Table B: VMT Reduction Program CIP Revenue Calculation
Adjusted (For City Growth
Projections)
Annual Projected Revenue
Residential Non-Residential Total
City + Sphere of Influence $ 2,907,310* $ 1,071,125 $ 3,978,436 *Adjusted to meet City's annual estimate of 1,800 household growth Expenditure
The CIP expenditure is based on the unfunded portions of the VMT mitigation project list as described under “Determination of VMT Fee” on the following page. The total five-year expenditures and annual expenditures between year 1 to 5 on the CIP was calculated based on expected expenditures provided by the City of Fresno FAX and Public Works Departments for the 24 identified projects in the CIP list.
In summary, as shown in Appendix D, the CIP revenue is anticipated to nominally exceed (by approximately $600) the CIP expenditures. It should be noted that the CIP includes a “Reserve to Complete” project account with a general description of both the project and funding plan to indicate the future use of these unencumbered fee funds.
Completion of all projects identified in the CIP is anticipated to occur beyond the initial 5 year expenditure period. As such, the initial CIP expenditures are constrained to expected revenues within the initial 5 year period. Funds remaining at the end of the 5 year period will be held in a Reserve to Complete project account and, together with funds collected in future years, will be committed to remaining projects identified in the VMT Reduction Program project list, including any subsequent updates.
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
30 VMT REDUCTION PROGRAM COSTS
As previously indicated, VMT-reducing projects from the City’s plan documents that had funding gaps were included in the VMT Reduction Program. Several variables were identified in coordination with the stakeholders to evaluate and prioritize the VMT-reducing projects. The goal of the project evaluation and prioritization process was to maximize VMT reduction while being cost effective and meeting the needs of the community.
FISCAL FRAMEWORK
Based on coordination with the City and stakeholders, the VMT Reduction Program will be based on a VMT Mitigation Bank Framework in terms of establishing the method of calculating the VMT mitigation fee within the traditional structure of an impact fee program where the costs of impacts for development projects are assessed and the VMT Reduction Program will act as a clearinghouse for mitigations and acceptance of payments according to established transactional terms. The VMT Reduction Program will implement prioritized VMT-reducing projects once enough funds are collected. In that regard, the program should incorporate two key capacities:
VMT Pricing: The program should establish a price for VMT impacts that can be linked to mitigation investments.
Enabling Transactions: the program should establish a means of exchange (e.g., dollars or credits) to facilitate the mitigation obligations.
The bank would require units of VMT pricing for ease of implementation. In coordination with the City and stakeholders, the cost ($) to reduce one vehicle mile traveled was selected as the unit of VMT mitigation bank credit or VMT pricing.
Determination of VMT Fee
In order to determine the cost to reduce one vehicle mile traveled, total costs of all the VMT- reducing projects and the amount of required VMT reduction were estimated.
The VMT reduction project costs were obtained from planning documents, and City staff estimated project costs where project costs were not readily available. The initial VMT-reducing project list consisted of over 100 projects (transit, non-motorized, and travel demand management). For each of the VMT-reducing projects, the stakeholders identified the source type and funding available from the primary funding source. It should be noted that while primary funding sources are available for these projects, they were not fully funded. For example, 80 percent of the funding was identified through various sources for most of the transit projects, which required 20 percent local match. The funding gap that was required to make the project funding complete was included in the VMT Reduction Program costs. The VMT mitigation bank only included costs for construction / implementation of the projects and does not include costs for operation and maintenance of the projects or monitoring of their performance.
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
31 Total citywide unmitigated VMT from the City’s General Plan scenario was obtained from the Fresno COG Activity Based Model (ABM) and was used as the VMT to be mitigated by the VMT reducing projects. The total unmitigated VMT was estimated from the growth of origin-destination (OD) VMT between General Plan and existing (base year) conditions after considering the population and employment growth in the region. The following steps describe the estimation process in detail:
1. Citywide OD VMT per service population (population + employment) was estimated for the existing conditions.
2. Horizon year (General Plan scenario) service population and existing OD VMT per service population were used to estimate desired citywide OD VMT for the horizon year. This is the target VMT that the City needed to achieve to avoid a significant VMT impact for the City’s General Plan.
3. Citywide OD VMT from the ABM was calculated for the General Plan scenario.
4. Difference in OD VMT between steps 3 and 2 resulted in the total unmitigated OD VMT, which was used in the development of unit VMT pricing.
Based on the VMT reducing project costs and unmitigated citywide OD VMT, the cost for reducing one VMT/VMT reduction credit was estimated to be $295. This fee was estimated using the total unfunded cost of projects from the project list and the total unmitigated VMT as shown below.
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐿𝑖𝑠𝑡 ($19,891,686)
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑈𝑛𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑉𝑀𝑇 (67,429) ≈ $295
As previously indicated, the VMT Reduction Program will be implemented as an impact fee program.
The fee would apply to new residential and non-residential developments in the city that are subject to VMT analysis under CEQA and are shown to generate VMT over the City’s threshold of significance. If a project screens out of VMT analysis, the impact fee would not be applicable.
Similarly, if the project can demonstrate less than significant VMT impact using the ABM, the impact fee would not be applicable. For development projects that have a significant VMT impact, these projects can reduce VMT through utilizing the UDC and implementing project design features. If a development project still demonstrates significant VMT impact after utilization of the UDC, the project will be required to mitigate the VMT overage (amount of VMT that is over the City’s thresholds). The development projects can estimate their total fees as a product of cost to reduce one VMT ($295) and the amount of VMT overage. Because the VMT mitigation fee is tied to a project’s impact, the fee is by design proportionate, therefore smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.
The cost per VMT mitigation/VMT reduction credit is the same across the entire City of Fresno.
However, the approach indirectly considers a development project’s geographic location. For example, development projects that are closer to other developments or developments that provide complementary land use types to the surrounding land uses will demonstrate a lower magnitude of impact and thus will pay a lower mitigation fee. Similarly, development projects that are in the less urban areas may have higher VMT overage, thereby paying higher VMT mitigation fees. A fee-based
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
32 approach is the most straightforward to administer and efficient in terms of investment, as it allows bank administrators and/or exchange participating parties to select the highest level of VMT mitigation per dollar of impact (controlling for other project prioritization factors) based on a transparent price per VMT. The VMT Reduction Program should review and update VMT pricing to account for variables such as inflation.
CALCULATION OF PROJECT MITIGATION FEE
Steps to Calculate VMT Mitigation Fee
Figure 4 illustrates the estimation of VMT mitigation fees for a development project that demonstrates a significant VMT impact after inclusion of project design improvements from the City’s UDC. The steps are described in detail below:
1. Estimate the total project land use quantities (e.g., dwelling units, employees). This information is available from the project description. For non-residential projects, typically thousand square feet (TSF) information is available which would be converted to the number of employees for conducting the project’s VMT analysis using the Fresno COG ABM.
2. Calculate the appropriate project VMT metric (e.g., VMT per capita, VMT per employee, total regional VMT) based on the project land use type. This information is included in the City’s CEQA Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (2020).
3. Compare the project VMT metric with the established threshold from the City’s guidelines. If the project VMT metric is lower than the threshold, as indicated before, the project does not have to pay VMT mitigation fees. In case the project’s VMT analysis results in a significant impact, the following steps need to be conducted.
4. The project VMT metric can be adjusted if the project proposes any design element improvements identified in the City’s UDC. The types of suggested design improvements and corresponding reduction in VMT are available from the City’s UDC. If the project can reduce its VMT impact to less than significant using the UDC, the project will not be required to pay any VMT mitigation fees. The following steps are applicable if the project VMT metric is greater than the threshold after application of the UDC.
5. Estimate the project VMT metric overage compared to the established threshold. As shown in Step A from the flow diagram, the project VMT metric overage would be:
A. Project VMT metric overage = Project VMT metric from ABM – VMT reduction from UDC – VMT per capita threshold
6. Estimate the total project VMT overage as shown in Step B of the flow diagram. The project VMT metric is multiplied by the project population/employees (population for residential uses and employees for non-residential uses) for efficiency metrics. For example, A. For residential projects:
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
33 Figure 4: Estimation of VMT Mitigation Fee for Development Projects with Significant VMT Impact
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
34 i. Total VMT overage = VMT per capita overage from step 5 * Total project population which can be obtained from ABM
For office and non-residential projects:
i. Total VMT overage = VMT per employee overage from step 5* Total project employees which can also be obtained from ABM
B. For retail projects:
i. Total VMT overage = Regional roadway VMT with project – Regional roadway VMT without project (Roadway VMT from the model can be estimated as a product of roadway volumes and roadway segment length within Fresno County)
7. Multiply the total VMT overage by the unit VMT mitigation fee to obtain the total project VMT mitigation fees.
Sample Calculation of VMT Mitigation Fee
Estimations of project VMT mitigation fees were conducted for sample projects to illustrate the magnitude of VMT mitigation fees in comparison to the City’s other fees. Calculation of VMT mitigation fees for a sample single family residential project is shown below.
1. Obtain the number of dwelling units/households (project households = 200) from the project description/site plan.
2. Estimate project population (project population = 610). Fresno COG ABM will include this information during the model run.
3. Calculate project VMT per capita (project VMT per capita = 17.6) using the Fresno COG ABM model run given the project is a residential project.
4. For the sample project’s analysis, no VMT reduction from the City’s UDC was assumed as a conservative approach. However, that step needs to be incorporated as previously described to determine the project’s VMT overage.
5. Compare project VMT per capita (17.6) with the City’s VMT per capita threshold (14.0) to estimate project VMT metric overage (VMT per capita overage = 17.6 – 14.0 = 3.6)
6. Convert VMT per capita overage into total VMT overage by multiplying the VMT per capita overage with project population (total VMT overage: 3.6 * 610 = 2,196 VMT)
7. Estimate total VMT mitigation fees by multiplying unit VMT fees with total VMT overage (total project VMT mitigation fees: 2,196 * $295 = $647,809)
The total VMT mitigation fee for the sample single family residential project with 200 dwelling units is $647,809. The VMT mitigation fee was compared to other existing fees for a typical single family
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
35 residential, multifamily residential, retail, and industrial project and was compared to ensure that the VMT mitigation fee was not excessive or significantly higher than other existing impact fees as illustrated in Table B.
Table C: Comparison of Existing Fees versus VMT Mitigation Fee Project Name Type
LU
Quantity
Fire Fac.
Impact
Fee
Police
Fac.
Impact
Fee
Regional
Street
Charge
New
Growth
Street
Charge
T.S.M.I.
Fee
Park Fac.
Impact
Fee
Total VMT
Mitigation
Fee*
Multi-Family
Residential
Development
Multifamily
(DUs) 150 $261,450 $108,450 $151,302 $473,975 $88,650 $577,800 $45,815 Single Family
Residential
Development
Single
Family
(DUs)
200 $457,000 $189,600 $146,668 $459,056 $152,400 $1,021,600 $647,809 Retail
Development TSF 100 $60,203 $88,604 $117,474 $377,773 $143,907 $950,068 Office
Development Employees 406 $263,378
Industrial
Development Employees 307 $362,260
*Actual VMT Mitigation Fee will vary based on location and proximity of other diverse land uses The following provides an illustration of the VMT mitigation fee calculations for this sample project.
Appendix E provides examples for calculation of VMT mitigation fees for other development projects.
Single Family Residential Development - VMT Analysis
2019 Mitigation Fee
Project Households (a) 200
Project Population (b) 610
Project VMT per capita (c) 17.6
VMT per capita Threshold (d) 14.0
Project excess VMT per capita (e = c - d) 3.6
Total Project excess VMT (f = e*b) 2,196
Fee per one mile of VMT reduction (g) $295
Total VMT Reduction Fees (h=g*f) $647,809
VMT Reduction Fees per Household (i=h/a) $3,239
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/26/25)
553247v1
36 VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/08/25)
553247v1
APPENDIX A
URBAN DESIGN CALCULATOR
Definitions
Variable Summary Detailed Description
acres Gross project site area This is the total area of the project site in acres.
Type of project Classify the project the project as one of the following: Single Family Residential, Multifamily Residential, Office, Industrial, Other.
Project Vehicle Miles Traveled This is the project VMT based on the socioeconomic charateristics and location.
Baseline VMT Threshold This is the VMT target that a project must achieve to have a less than significant VMT impact.
DU/acre Residential density of project development.The number of dwelling units per acre of the residential development.
DU/acre Residential density of typical development.
Default value: 9.1 du/ac
The residential density of typical development is based on the blended average density of residential development in the U.S. forecasted for 2025. This estimate includes apartments, condominiums, and townhouses, as well as detached single- family housing on both small and large lots. An acre in this context is defined as an acre of developed land, not including streets, school sites, parks, and other undevelopable land. If reductions are being calculated from a specific baseline derived from a travel demand forecasting model, the residential density of the relevant transportation analysis zone should be used instead of the value for a typical development. % Percent of multifmaily units permanently dedicated
as affordable.
This refers to percent of multifamily units in the project that are deed restricted or otherwise permanently dedicated as affordable.
jobs/ac Job density of project development. The number of jobs per acre of the office development. jobs/ac Job density of typical development.
Default value: 145 job/ac
The jobs density is based on the calculated density of a development with a floor-area ratio of 1.0 and 300 square feet (sf) of building space per employee. If reductions are being calculated from a specific baseline derived from a travel demand forecasting model, the job density of the relevant transportation analysis zone should be used for this variable instead of the default value presented above.
# of connectionsTotal number of ungated automobile connections from project to adjacent development sites.
This is the total number of ungated project driveway connections that allow automotive traffic to travel directly between the project and adjacent developments.
# of connectionsTotal number of ungated automobile connections from project to adjacent major streets.
This is the total number of ungated project driveway connections that allow automotive traffic to access the adjacent major roadway.
# of intersectionsTotal number of controlled intersections on adjacent major streets. This is the total number of intersections between two streets not including driveways.
City of Fresno
URBAN DESIGN VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED CALCULATOR
Source: CAPCOA Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity T-1: Increase Residential Density [Project]
T-2: Increase Job Density [Project]
T-4: Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing [Project] User defined input
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction Output Results
Input not applicable - Depending on project land use, some inputs are not applicable.
Basic Information
Land Use
T-17: Improve Street Connectivity [Community]
City of Fresno
URBAN DESIGN VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED CALCULATOR
Source: CAPCOA Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity miles Length of existing streets with two sidewalks within
0.6 miles of the project. The length of external streets that has sidewalks on both sides of the street within 0.6 miles of the project. miles Length of existing streets with one sidewalk within
0.6 miles of the project. The length of external streets that has sidewalks on at least one side of the street within 0.6 miles of the project. miles Length of internal streets with sidewalks on both sides constructed by the project: The length of project internal streets that will have sidewalks on both sides that will be constructed by the project. miles Length of internal streets with sidewalks on one side constructed by the project: The length of project internal streets that will have sidewalks on at least one side that will be constructed by the project. miles Length of additional sidewalks to be constructed on external streets. The length of additional sidewalks to be constructed on external streets by the project. miles Existing bikeway miles within 2.5 miles of the project area.
The existing bikeway miles in a plan/community should be calculated by measuring the distance of all Class I, II, III, and IV bikeways within the the 2.5 miles of the project area. This information can sometimes be found in a city’s bicycle master plan, if a plan has been prepared and is up to date.
miles Bikeway miles within 2.5 miles of the project area after project implementation. The bikeway miles in the plan/community with implementation of bikeways by the project. vehicles Number of vehicles deployed in plan/community.The number of cars in the carshare program is selected by the carshare provider, but its magnitude is relative to the size of the service area.
vehicles Number of electric vehicles deployed in
plan/community.
The number of cars in the carshare program is selected by the carshare provider, but its magnitude is relative to the size of the service area.
% Percent of residences in plan/community with access
to bikeshare system without measure.
% Percent of residences in plan/community with access
to bikeshare system with measure.
% Percent of residences in plan/community with access
to electric bikeshare system without measure.
% Percent of residences in plan/community with access
to electric bikeshare system with measure.
% Percent of residences in plan/community with access
to scootershare system without measure.
% Percent of residences in plan/community with access
to scootershare system with measure.
% Percent of plan/community transit routes that
receive treatments.
The percent of transit routes in the plan/community getting roadway improvements, e.g. queue jumps, transit signal priority, etc.
# of chargers
Number of EV chargers installed at project site in
excess of what is required by the 2022 CALGreen.
(EV Ready/EV Installed):
The number of electric vehicle chargers that will be installed at the project site beyond what is required by the 2022 California Green Building Standards (CALGreen). Recommends using CALGreen 2022 as it is the most recent version of building standards code for California. Residential EV charging requirements are listed under "4.106.4 Electric vehicle (EV) charging for new construction" and non-residential requirements are listed under "5.106.5.3 Electric vehicle (EV) charging".
# of vehiclesTotal vehicles accessing site per day. The total number of vehicles accessing the project site per day. # of parking
spaces
Residential parking demand (Parking demand based
on ITE Parking Generation Manual).
The user can calculate the parking demand in the ITE Parking Generation Manual based on the project building square footage or number of DUs.
# of parking
spaces Project residential parking supply. The number of park spaces on the project site that will be available for residents. % Percentage of project VMT Generated by Residents.
Available research on changes in parking supply focuses on residential land uses. Therefore, reductions are applied only to the share of VMT generated by residents of a project. For most residential projects, this will be 100 percent; however, for mixed-use projects, the user will need to provide project-specific data. $ per year Annual parking cost per space.
For most projects, this represents a monthly parking fee multiplied by 12. For deeded parking spaces, an estimate of the additional cost to a mortgage may be used, or the total cost may be prorated over 30 years. Costs to park will vary widely based on location; however, this value should consider if other nearby offsite parking options are available at lower cost. % The urban form of this project warrants a VMT
Reduction of:
The total VMT reduction across all transportation categories has been limited to 10% cap. The 10% cap is based on cross- category maximum for the suburban land use from page 58 of the CAPCOA Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, August 2010. The suburban land use cap from the August 2010 edition was deemed more appropriate than the 70% cap from the December 2021 edition due to land use characteristics in the City of Fresno.
DU - dwelling unit; ac - acres
T-22A: Implement Pedal (Non-Electric) Bikeshare Program Access to bikesharing is measured as the percent of residences in the plan/community within 0.25 mile of a bikeshare station. For dockless bikes, assume that all residences within 0.25 mile of the designated dockless service area would have access.
T-22B: Implement Electric Bikeshare Program
Results
Design Subsector
T-15: Limit Residential Parking Supply
T-16: Unbundle Residential Parking Costs from Property Cost T-18: Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement
T-20: Expand Bikeway Network
Access to electric bikesharing is measured as the percent of residences in the plan/community within 0.25-mile of an electric bikeshare station. For dockless bikes, assume that all residences within 0.25 mile of the designated dockless service area would have access.
T-22C: Implement Scootershare Program
T-14: Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure
T-27: Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments
Transit Subsector
Parking Pricing/Management Subsector
Access to scootersharing is measured as the percent of residences in the plan/community within 0.25-mile of a scootershare station. For dockless scooters, assume that all residences within 0.25-mile of the designated dockless service area would have access.
T-21A: Implement Conventional Carshare Program
T-21B: Implement Electric Carshare Program
Calculation Run By:
Date of Calculation:
Project Name:
Applicant/Developer:
Major Cross Streets:
Project Address:
APN(s):
Gross Project Site Area: 10 acres
Type of Project: Other
Project Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT): 15.0 VMT per employee Baseline VMT Threshold: 15.0 VMT per employee
VMT Difference: 0.00 %
Does the project have a VMT Impact? No
Basic Information
City of Fresno
URBAN DESIGN VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED CALCULATOR
Source: CAPCOA Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity Residential density of project development: dwelling unit/ac Residential density of typical development: 9.1 dwelling unit/ac VMT Reduction: 0.00 %
Percent of multifamily units permanently dedicated as
affordable: %
VMT Reduction: 0.00 %
Job density of project development: jobs/acre
Job density of typical development: 145 jobs/acre
VMT Reduction: 0.00 %
Total number of ungated automobile connections from project to adjacent development sites: connections
Total number of ungated automobile connections from project to adjacent major streets: connections
Total number of controlled intersections on adjacent major streets: intersections
VMT Reduction: 0.00 %
Land Use Project Scale VMT Reduction: 0.00 %
Land Use Community Scale VMT Reduction: 0.00 %
City of Fresno
URBAN DESIGN VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED CALCULATOR
Source: CAPCOA Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity Land Use Related Project Design Features/Mitigations
Total Land Use VMT Reduction
T-4: Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing [Project] T-2: Increase Job Density [Project]
T-1: Increase Residential Density [Project]
T-17: Improve Street Connectivity [Community]
Length of existing streets with two sidewalks within 0.6 miles of the project: miles
Length of existing streets with one sidewalk within 0.6 miles of the project: miles
Length of internal streets with sidewalks on both sides constructed by the project: miles
Length of internal streets with sidewalks on one side
constructed by the project: miles
Length of additional sidewalks to be constructed on external streets: miles
VMT Reduction: 0.00 %
T-20: Expand Bikeway Network
Existing bikeway miles within 2.5 miles of the project area: miles Bikeway miles within 2.5 miles of the project area after project implementation: miles
VMT Reduction: 0.00 %
Number of vehicles deployed in plan/community: vehicles VMT Reduction: 0.00 %
Number of electric vehicles deployed in plan/community: vehicles VMT Reduction: 0.00 %
Percent of residences in plan/community with access to
bikeshare system without measure: %
Percent of residences in plan/community with access to
bikeshare system with measure: %
VMT Reduction: 0.00 %
Percent of residences in plan/community with access to electric bikeshare system without measure: %
Percent of residences in plan/community with access to electric bikeshare system with measure: %
VMT Reduction: 0.00 %
Percent of residences in plan/community with access to
scootershare system without measure: 0 %
Percent of residences in plan/community with access to
scootershare system with measure: %
VMT Reduction: 0.00 %
Design VMT Reduction: 0.00 %
Total Design VMT Reduction:
City of Fresno
URBAN DESIGN VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED CALCULATOR
Source: CAPCOA Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity Design Subsector
T-22A: Implement Pedal (Non-Electric) Bikeshare Program T-21A: Implement Conventional Carshare Program
T-22B: Implement Electric Bikeshare Program
T-22C: Implement Scootershare Program
T-21B: Implement Electric Carshare Program
T-18: Provide Pedestrian Network Improvement
Percent of plan/community transit routes that receive treatments: % VMT Reduction: 0.00 %
Number of EV chargers installed at project site in excess of what is required by the 2022 CALGreen (EV Ready/EV Installed): chargers Total vehicles accessing site per day: vehicles
VMT Reduction: 0.00 %
T-15: Limit Residential Parking Supply
Residential parking demand (Parking demand based on ITE Parking Generation Manual): parking spaces
Project residential parking supply: parking spaces
Percentage of Project VMT Generated by Residents: %
VMT Reduction: 0.00 %
Annual parking cost per space: $ per year
VMT Reduction: 0.00 %
Transit Subsector VMT Reduction: 0.00 %
Parking Pricing/Management Subsector VMT Reduction:0.00 % Total VMT Reduction
Parking Pricing/Management Subsector
City of Fresno
URBAN DESIGN VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED CALCULATOR
Source: CAPCOA Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity Transit Subsector
T-14: Provide Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure
T-16: Unbundle Residential Parking Costs from Property Cost T-27: Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments
Land Use Project Scale Subsector 0.00 %
Land Use Community Scale Subsector 0.00 %
Design Subsector 0.00 %
Transit Subsector 0.00
Parking Pricing/Magement Subsector 0.00
Results of Urban Form VMT Analysis
Project Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT): 15.0 VMT per employee Baseline VMT Threshold: 15.0 VMT per employee
VMT Difference: 0.00 %
The urban form of this project warrants a VMT Reduction of: 0.00 %
The adjusted VMT for this project is: 15.0 VMT per employee Adjusted VMT Difference: 0.00 %
After analysis of its urban form, does this project still have a VMT impact which must be mitigated through a fee or
other measure?
NO
Subsector VMT Reduction
City of Fresno
URBAN DESIGN VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED CALCULATOR
Source: CAPCOA Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/08/25)
553247v1
APPENDIX B
VMT MITIGATION PROJECT SCORING
Project ID Street Name Project Description Project Type C-1
Connectivity
to Existing
Network
C-2
Connectivity
to Schools
C-3
Connectivity
to Public
Transit
C-4
Connectivity
to Parks
C-5
Connectivity
to Key
Destinations
C-6
Connectivity
to Future
Network
C-7 Regional
Significance
C-8 Place
Type Total Weighted
T1 0
ADA Bus Stop Accessibility
Improvements Bus Stop Improvements 0 9 4 2 3 0 0 0 18 51.4 T14 0 Non-Revenue Vehicle PurchaseSupport 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 T16 0 Passenger Amenities Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 T19 0 Systemwide Traffic-Signal PrioritySupport 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 T31 0
Right of Way Acquisition - For bus to
achieve ADA compliance of boarding,
alighting and passegner amenities.Bus Stop Improvements 0 9 4 2 3 0 0 0 18 51.4 T38 0
Veterans Home System Expansion -
Expand System to California Verterans
Home New Line 3 15 4 4 4 2 1 0 33 94.3
T39 Southern Industrial Area
Three new buses, 52 new ADA
compliant stops for Southern Industrial
service expanion. New Line 3 15 4 4 4 2 1 0 33 94.3
T42 Cedar Ave
Cedar Ave Transit Signal Priority -
Adaptive Signal Control on Cedar from
Herndon to Jensen Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
T45 0
Six new buses to increase service on
Route 32 Frequency 0 12 4 4 4 0 1 0 25 71.4
T47 Ashlan Avenue
Two new buses and 10 new stops to
increase service on Route 45 Frequency 0 12 4 4 4 0 0 0 24 68.6 T48 0
New/Expanded Bus yard Facilities
Construction - Purchase property for
new bus yard expansion Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
T49 0
Mobility as a Service - Explore and
Implement Rideshare, Car Share, and
Bike Share Mobility as Service 3 15 4 4 4 2 1 0 33 94.3 T50 0
Real Time Passenger Information -
Real Time Bus Arrival and DepartureSupport 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 T55 0
Back-Up Energy Storage - Large Scale
Energy Storage for Backup and
Emergency Power for EV ChargersSupport 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 T57 0
Ambassador Program - Travel Training
Program for Schools and other Social
Services Plan, Policy, Study, Marketing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 T58 0
Enhanced Marketing Public Outreach -
Outreach of Service ExpansionsPlan, Policy, Study, Marketing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 T62 0
Associated Transit Improvements -
Implement Passenger Amenity
Improvements for Bus Stations, TIRCP
funds for the high frequency network as
reflected in the FTIP Bus Stop Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 T63 0 Bike Racks - on FAX Buses Active Transportation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Project Information Connectivity Scoring
Project ID Street Name Project Description Project Type C-1
Connectivity
to Existing
Network
C-2
Connectivity
to Schools
C-3
Connectivity
to Public
Transit
C-4
Connectivity
to Parks
C-5
Connectivity
to Key
Destinations
C-6
Connectivity
to Future
Network
C-7 Regional
Significance
C-8 Place
Type Total Weighted
Project Information Connectivity Scoring
T64 0
Zero Emissions Buses and Supporting
Infrastructure - Purchase Zero
Emission Buses and Supporting
Infrastructure to replace current FleetBus Purchase 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 T65 0
Zero Emissions Buses and Supporting
Infrastructure - Purchase Zero
Emission Buses and Supporting
Infrastructure for transit expansionBus Purchase 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 T69 0
Transit Security Projects - Implement
Security and Safety Projects on buses
and at transit stations, access control,
video surveillance, lighting, fire safety,
etc. Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
T86 Blackstone/Shaw Queue Jump Lane Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 T87 Blackstone/Shields Queue Jump Lane Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 T96 Clinton Avenue
Three new buses for 15 Minute
Frequency on Route 39 Frequency 0 15 4 4 4 0 1 0 28 80.0 T102 Bullard Ave
Four new buses and 72 new stops for
Bullard Ave Crosstown Route New Line 3 15 4 4 4 2 0 0 32 91.4 T126 Church Ave
Four new buses and 68 new stops for
Church Avenue Crosstown ServiceNew Line 3 15 4 4 4 2 0 0 32 91.4 T130 Willow Ave
Four new buses and 68 new stops for
service from Willow Avenue from
Shields and Clovis Community CollegeNew Line 3 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 9 25.7 T134 0
Purchase and develop land in support
of revitalization and mixed-use
development along high capacity/high
frequency transit corridors. Frequency 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 T135 0
Passenger amenity improvements (bus
stops/stations) throughout FAX route
system, including concrete
improvements, shelters, lighting,
signage, etc. Annual average $150k.Bus Stop Improvements 0 9 0 2 4 2 1 0 18 51.4 B3
W Audubon Ave to W Nees Ave
to Gravel Haul Rd to W Alluvial
Ave to Harrison Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 3 12 4 4 4 2 0 2 31 88.6 B4 E Shepherd Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 3 12 4 4 4 2 1 2 32 91.4 B5
N Millbrook Ave [0.1 miles on E
Bullard Ave] Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 3 15 4 4 4 2 0 2 34 97.1 B9
W Bullard Ave to W Sierra Ave to
N Dante Ave to W San Jose AvePriority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 3 12 4 4 4 2 0 0 29 82.9 B11 E Barstow Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 3 15 4 4 4 2 0 2 34 97.1 B13 W Gettysburg Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 3 15 4 4 0 2 0 2 30 85.7 Project ID Street Name Project Description Project Type C-1
Connectivity
to Existing
Network
C-2
Connectivity
to Schools
C-3
Connectivity
to Public
Transit
C-4
Connectivity
to Parks
C-5
Connectivity
to Key
Destinations
C-6
Connectivity
to Future
Network
C-7 Regional
Significance
C-8 Place
Type Total Weighted
Project Information Connectivity Scoring
B14
N Valentine Ave to N Emerson Ave to
Herndon No. 39 Canal Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 3 15 4 4 4 2 0 2 34 97.1 B16 N Cornelia Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 3 15 4 4 4 2 0 0 32 91.4 B17
Along Herndon No 39 Canal (section on
E Shields Ave) to Mill No 36 Canal
(section along E McKinley Ave) to N
Clovis Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 3 15 4 4 4 2 0 2 34 97.1 B18 E Dakota Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 3 15 4 4 4 2 0 2 34 97.1 B20 N Maple Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 3 15 4 4 4 2 0 2 34 97.1 B26 S Maple Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 3 15 4 4 4 2 0 2 34 97.1 B28
N Clovis Ave to Fancher No 6
Canal to Central No 23 Canal Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 3 6 4 4 4 2 0 0 23 65.7 B37 E Church Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 3 15 4 4 4 2 0 0 32 91.4 PED-UN2 Calimyrna Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 3 0 4 2 4 2 0 2 17 48.6 PED-UN3 Chestnut/Belmont NeighborhoodUnderserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 3 15 4 4 4 2 0 2 34 97.1 PED-UN4 Chestnut/Olive NeighborhoodUnderserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 3 12 4 2 4 2 0 0 27 77.1 PED-UN5 Church/Elm Area Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 3 9 4 4 0 2 0 0 22 62.9 PED-UN6 Del Mar Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 3 15 4 2 4 2 0 2 32 91.4 PED-UN7
Florence Avenue to Balderas
Elementary School Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 3 12 4 4 4 2 0 0 29 82.9 PED-UN8 Herndon/41 Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 3 6 4 0 4 0 0 2 19 54.3 PED-UN9
Hidalgo Elementary School
Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 3 15 4 4 4 2 0 2 34 97.1 PED-UN10Jane Addams Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 3 12 4 4 4 2 0 0 29 82.9 PED-UN11Maple/Church Area Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 3 12 4 4 4 2 0 0 29 82.9 PED-UN13
Norseman Elementary School
Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 3 15 4 4 4 2 0 2 34 97.1 PED-UN14North Avenue Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 3 15 4 0 4 2 1 0 29 82.9 PED-UN16Roeding Park Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 3 9 4 4 4 2 0 0 26 74.3 PED-UN17Scandinavian Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 3 15 4 4 4 2 0 0 32 91.4 PED-UN18West of Edison Area Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 3 15 4 4 4 2 0 0 32 91.4 PED-UN19Yosemite Middle School NeighborhoodUnderserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 3 12 4 4 4 2 0 2 31 88.6 PED-PAA1 Downtown Fresno Pedestrian Activity Areas Active Transportation 3 12 4 4 4 2 0 2 31 88.6 PED-PAA2 Tower District - Olive Avenue Pedestrian Activity Areas Active Transportation 3 12 4 0 4 2 0 2 27 77.1 PED-PAA3 Van Ness Avenue - near Fresno City Pedestrian Activity Areas Active Transportation 3 12 4 0 4 2 0 2 27 77.1 PED-PAA4 Blackstone Avenue/Abby StreetPedestrian Activity Areas Active Transportation 3 15 4 4 4 2 0 2 34 97.1 PED-PAA5 Ventura Avenue Pedestrian Activity Areas Active Transportation 3 12 4 4 4 2 0 2 31 88.6 PED-SA1 Blackstone Avenue
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement
Corridors Active Transportation 3 12 4 4 4 2 0 2 31 88.6 PED-SA2 Shaw Avenue
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement
Corridors Active Transportation 3 6 4 4 4 2 0 2 25 71.4 PED-SA3 Shaw Avenue
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement
Corridors Active Transportation 3 15 4 4 4 2 0 2 34 97.1 PED-SA4 West Avenue
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement
Corridors Active Transportation 3 12 4 4 4 2 0 2 31 88.6 PED-SA5 First Street
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement
Corridors Active Transportation 3 15 4 4 4 2 0 2 34 97.1 PED-SA6 Cedar Avenue
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement
Corridors Active Transportation 3 15 4 4 4 2 0 2 34 97.1 PED-SA7 Cedar Avenue
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement
Corridors Active Transportation 3 15 4 2 4 2 0 2 32 91.4 Project ID Street Name Project Description Project Type C-1
Connectivity
to Existing
Network
C-2
Connectivity
to Schools
C-3
Connectivity
to Public
Transit
C-4
Connectivity
to Parks
C-5
Connectivity
to Key
Destinations
C-6
Connectivity
to Future
Network
C-7 Regional
Significance
C-8 Place
Type Total Weighted
Project Information Connectivity Scoring
PED-SA8 Kings Canyon Road
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement
Corridors Active Transportation 3 15 4 4 4 2 0 2 34 97.1 PED-SA9 Chestnut Avenue
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement
Corridors Active Transportation 3 15 4 4 4 2 0 2 34 97.1 PED-SA10 Clovis Avenue
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement
Corridors Active Transportation 3 12 4 4 4 2 0 0 29 82.9 PED-SA11 Butler Avenue
Pedestrian Safety Enhancement
Corridors Active Transportation 3 15 4 4 4 2 0 2 34 97.1 B38
Southern Blackstone Avenue Smart
Mobility Strategy Class IV Bikeway Active Transportation 3 15 4 4 4 2 0 0 32 91.4 Project ID Street Name Project Description Project Type A-1
Accessibility
A-2
Equity
A-3
Community
Identified
Priority
A-4
Vehicle
Ownership Total Weighted
T1 0 ADA Bus Stop Accessibility Improvements Bus Stop Improvements 4 8 3 2 17 56.7 T14 0 Non-Revenue Vehicle Purchase Support 0 0 3 0 3 10.0 T16 0 Passenger Amenities Support 2 0 3 0 5 16.7
T19 0 Systemwide Traffic-Signal Priority Support 0 8 3 2 13 43.3 T31 0
Right of Way Acquisition - For bus to achieve
ADA compliance of boarding, alighting and
passegner amenities. Bus Stop Improvements 4 8 3 2 17 56.7 T38 0
Veterans Home System Expansion - Expand
System to California Verterans HomeNew Line 4 18 3 0 25 83.3 T39 Southern Industrial Area
Three new buses, 52 new ADA compliant stops
for Southern Industrial service expanion.New Line 4 18 3 2 27 90.0 T42 Cedar Ave
Cedar Ave Transit Signal Priority - Adaptive
Signal Control on Cedar from Herndon to
Jensen Support 0 18 3 2 23 76.7
T45 0 Six new buses to increase service on Route 32Frequency 0 18 3 2 23 76.7 T47 Ashlan Avenue
Two new buses and 10 new stops to increase
service on Route 45 Frequency 0 13 3 2 18 60.0
T48 0
New/Expanded Bus yard Facilities
Construction - Purchase property for new bus
yard expansion Support 0 0 3 0 3 10.0
T49 0
Mobility as a Service - Explore and Implement
Rideshare, Car Share, and Bike ShareMobility as Service 2 8 3 2 15 50.0 T50 0
Real Time Passenger Information - Real Time
Bus Arrival and Departure Support 0 0 3 0 3 10.0
T55 0
Back-Up Energy Storage - Large Scale Energy
Storage for Backup and Emergency Power for
EV Chargers Support 0 0 3 0 3 10.0
T57 0
Ambassador Program - Travel Training Program
for Schools and other Social ServicesPlan, Policy, Study, Marketing 0 0 3 0 3 10.0 T58 0
Enhanced Marketing Public Outreach -
Outreach of Service Expansions Plan, Policy, Study, Marketing 0 0 3 0 3 10.0 T62 0
Associated Transit Improvements - Implement
Passenger Amenity Improvements for Bus
Stations, TIRCP funds for the high frequency
network as reflected in the FTIP Bus Stop Improvements 4 8 3 2 17 56.7 T63 0 Bike Racks - on FAX Buses Active Transportation 0 0 3 0 3 10.0 Project Information Access and Equity Scoring
Project ID Street Name Project Description Project Type A-1
Accessibility
A-2
Equity
A-3
Community
Identified
Priority
A-4
Vehicle
Ownership Total Weighted
Project Information Access and Equity Scoring
T64 0
Zero Emissions Buses and Supporting
Infrastructure - Purchase Zero Emission
Buses and Supporting Infrastructure to
replace current Fleet Bus Purchase 0 0 3 0 3 10.0
T65 0
Zero Emissions Buses and Supporting
Infrastructure - Purchase Zero Emission Buses
and Supporting Infrastructure for transit
expansion Bus Purchase 0 0 3 0 3 10.0
T69 0
Transit Security Projects - Implement Security
and Safety Projects on buses and at transit
stations, access control, video surveillance,
lighting, fire safety, etc. Support 0 0 3 0 3 10.0
T86 Blackstone/Shaw Queue Jump Lane Support 0 0 3 0 3 10.0 T87 Blackstone/Shields Queue Jump Lane Support 0 13 3 0 16 53.3 T96 Clinton Avenue
Three new buses for 15 Minute Frequency on
Route 39 Frequency 0 18 3 2 23 76.7
T102 Bullard Ave
Four new buses and 72 new stops for Bullard
Ave Crosstown Route New Line 4 13 3 0 20 66.7
T126 Church Ave
Four new buses and 68 new stops for Church
Avenue Crosstown Service New Line 4 18 3 0 25 83.3
T130 Willow Ave
Four new buses and 68 new stops for service
from Willow Avenue from Shields and Clovis
Community College New Line 4 13 3 0 20 66.7
T134 0
Purchase and develop land in support of
revitalization and mixed-use development
along high capacity/high frequency transit
corridors. Frequency 0 0 3 0 3 10.0
T135 0
Passenger amenity improvements (bus
stops/stations) throughout FAX route system,
including concrete improvements, shelters,
lighting, signage, etc. Annual average $150k.Bus Stop Improvements 4 0 3 0 7 23.3 B3
W Audubon Ave to W Nees Ave
to Gravel Haul Rd to W Alluvial
Ave to Harrison Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 0 8 5 0 13 43.3 B4 E Shepherd Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 4 0 5 0 9 30.0 B5
N Millbrook Ave [0.1 miles on E
Bullard Ave] Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 4 8 5 0 17 56.7 B9
W Bullard Ave to W Sierra Ave to
N Dante Ave to W San Jose Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 4 8 5 0 17 56.7 B11 E Barstow Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 4 8 5 2 19 63.3 B13 W Gettysburg Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 4 13 5 0 22 73.3 Project ID Street Name Project Description Project Type A-1
Accessibility
A-2
Equity
A-3
Community
Identified
Priority
A-4
Vehicle
Ownership Total Weighted
Project Information Access and Equity Scoring
B14
N Valentine Ave to N Emerson Ave to Herndon
No. 39 Canal Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 4 13 5 0 22 73.3 B16 N Cornelia Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 4 13 5 0 22 73.3 B17
Along Herndon No 39 Canal (section on E Shields
Ave) to Mill No 36 Canal (section along E
McKinley Ave) to N Clovis Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 4 13 5 0 22 73.3 B18 E Dakota Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 4 8 5 0 17 56.7 B20 N Maple Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 4 13 5 0 22 73.3 B26 S Maple Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 4 18 5 0 27 90.0 B28
N Clovis Ave to Fancher No 6
Canal to Central No 23 Canal Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 4 18 5 0 27 90.0 B37 E Church Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 4 18 5 0 27 90.0 PED-UN2 Calimyrna Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 0 8 5 0 13 43.3 PED-UN3 Chestnut/Belmont Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 4 8 5 0 17 56.7 PED-UN4 Chestnut/Olive Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 4 18 5 0 27 90.0 PED-UN5 Church/Elm Area Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 0 18 5 0 23 76.7 PED-UN6 Del Mar Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 4 8 5 0 17 56.7 PED-UN7 Florence Avenue to Balderas Elementary School Underserved NeighborhoodsActive Transportation 4 18 5 0 27 90.0 PED-UN8 Herndon/41 Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 0 8 5 0 13 43.3 PED-UN9 Hidalgo Elementary School NeighborhoodUnderserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 4 18 5 0 27 90.0 PED-UN10Jane Addams Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 4 18 5 0 27 90.0 PED-UN11Maple/Church Area Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 4 18 5 0 27 90.0 PED-UN13Norseman Elementary School Neighborhood Underserved NeighborhoodsActive Transportation 4 8 5 0 17 56.7 PED-UN14North Avenue Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 4 18 5 0 27 90.0 PED-UN16Roeding Park Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 4 18 5 0 27 90.0 PED-UN17Scandinavian Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 4 13 5 0 22 73.3 PED-UN18West of Edison Area Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 4 18 5 0 27 90.0 PED-UN19Yosemite Middle School NeighborhoodUnderserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 4 18 5 0 27 90.0 PED-PAA1 Downtown Fresno Pedestrian Activity Areas Active Transportation 4 18 5 2 29 96.7 PED-PAA2 Tower District - Olive Avenue Pedestrian Activity Areas Active Transportation 4 8 5 0 17 56.7 PED-PAA3 Van Ness Avenue - near Fresno City CollegePedestrian Activity Areas Active Transportation 4 8 5 0 17 56.7 PED-PAA4 Blackstone Avenue/Abby Street Pedestrian Activity Areas Active Transportation 4 18 5 2 29 96.7 PED-PAA5 Ventura Avenue Pedestrian Activity Areas Active Transportation 4 18 5 0 27 90.0 PED-SA1 Blackstone Avenue Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridors Active Transportation 4 18 5 0 27 90.0 PED-SA2 Shaw Avenue Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridors Active Transportation 4 13 5 0 22 73.3 PED-SA3 Shaw Avenue Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridors Active Transportation 4 8 5 0 17 56.7 PED-SA4 West Avenue Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridors Active Transportation 4 8 5 0 17 56.7 Project ID Street Name Project Description Project Type A-1
Accessibility
A-2
Equity
A-3
Community
Identified
Priority
A-4
Vehicle
Ownership Total Weighted
Project Information Access and Equity Scoring
PED-SA5 First Street Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridors Active Transportation 4 18 5 0 27 90.0 PED-SA6 Cedar Avenue Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridors Active Transportation 4 18 5 0 27 90.0 PED-SA7 Cedar Avenue Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridors Active Transportation 4 18 5 0 27 90.0 PED-SA8 Kings Canyon Road Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridors Active Transportation 4 18 5 0 27 90.0 PED-SA9 Chestnut Avenue Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridors Active Transportation 4 18 5 0 27 90.0 PED-SA10 Clovis Avenue Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridors Active Transportation 4 13 5 0 22 73.3 PED-SA11 Butler Avenue Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridors Active Transportation 4 18 5 0 27 90.0 B38
Southern Blackstone Avenue Smart Mobility
Strategy Class IV Bikeway Active Transportation 4 18 5 0 27 90.0 Project ID Street Name Project Description Project Type T-1 Bicycle
or
Pedestrian
Collisions
T-2
Project
Type
T-3 Potential
for Mode
Shift and
Greenhouse
Gas
Reduction
T-4
Location
Efficiency:
Population
Density Total Weighted
T1 0 ADA Bus Stop Accessibility ImprovementsBus Stop Improvements 15 4 4 2 25 71 T14 0 Non-Revenue Vehicle Purchase Support 0 0 0 0 0 0
T16 0 Passenger Amenities Support 0 0 0 0 0 0
T19 0 Systemwide Traffic-Signal Priority Support 0 0 0 0 0 0 T31 0
Right of Way Acquisition - For bus to achieve
ADA compliance of boarding, alighting and
passegner amenities. Bus Stop Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0
T38 0
Veterans Home System Expansion - Expand
System to California Verterans HomeNew Line 0 0 4 2 6 55 T39 Southern Industrial Area
Three new buses, 52 new ADA compliant stops
for Southern Industrial service expanion.New Line 0 0 4 2 6 55 T42 Cedar Ave
Cedar Ave Transit Signal Priority - Adaptive
Signal Control on Cedar from Herndon to
Jensen Support 0 0 6 4 10 91
T45 0 Six new buses to increase service on Route 32Frequency 0 0 6 4 10 91 T47 Ashlan Avenue
Two new buses and 10 new stops to increase
service on Route 45 Frequency 0 0 6 4 10 91
T48 0
New/Expanded Bus yard Facilities Construction
- Purchase property for new bus yard expansionSupport 0 0 0 0 0 0 T49 0
Mobility as a Service - Explore and Implement
Rideshare, Car Share, and Bike ShareMobility as Service 0 0 0 0 0 0 T50 0
Real Time Passenger Information - Real Time
Bus Arrival and Departure Support 0 0 0 0 0 0
T55 0
Back-Up Energy Storage - Large Scale Energy
Storage for Backup and Emergency Power for
EV Chargers Support 0 0 0 0 0 0
T57 0
Ambassador Program - Travel Training Program
for Schools and other Social ServicesPlan, Policy, Study, Marketing 0 0 0 0 0 0 T58 0
Enhanced Marketing Public Outreach -
Outreach of Service Expansions Plan, Policy, Study, Marketing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Information Traffic Control, Mode Shift and User Comfort Scoring Project ID Street Name Project Description Project Type T-1 Bicycle
or
Pedestrian
Collisions
T-2
Project
Type
T-3 Potential
for Mode
Shift and
Greenhouse
Gas
Reduction
T-4
Location
Efficiency:
Population
Density Total Weighted
Project Information Traffic Control, Mode Shift and User Comfort Scoring T62 0
Associated Transit Improvements - Implement
Passenger Amenity Improvements for Bus
Stations, TIRCP funds for the high frequency
network as reflected in the FTIP Bus Stop Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0 T63 0 Bike Racks - on FAX Buses Active Transportation 0 0 0 0 0 0 T64 0
Zero Emissions Buses and Supporting
Infrastructure - Purchase Zero Emission Buses
and Supporting Infrastructure to replace
current Fleet Bus Purchase 0 0 0 0 0 0
T65 0
Zero Emissions Buses and Supporting
Infrastructure - Purchase Zero Emission Buses
and Supporting Infrastructure for transit
expansion Bus Purchase 0 0 0 0 0 0
T69 0
Transit Security Projects - Implement Security
and Safety Projects on buses and at transit
stations, access control, video surveillance,
lighting, fire safety, etc. Support 0 0 0 0 0 0
T86 Blackstone/Shaw Queue Jump Lane Support 0 0 7 1 8 73 T87 Blackstone/Shields Queue Jump Lane Support 0 0 7 1 8 73 T96 Clinton Avenue
Three new buses for 15 Minute Frequency on
Route 39 Frequency 0 0 6 4 10 91
T102 Bullard Ave
Four new buses and 72 new stops for Bullard
Ave Crosstown Route New Line 0 0 6 4 10 91
T126 Church Ave
Four new buses and 68 new stops for Church
Avenue Crosstown Service New Line 0 0 4 4 8 73
T130 Willow Ave
Four new buses and 68 new stops for service
from Willow Avenue from Shields and Clovis
Community College New Line 0 0 6 4 10 91
T134 0
Purchase and develop land in support of
revitalization and mixed-use development
along high capacity/high frequency transit
corridors. Frequency 0 0 0 0 0 0
T135 0
Passenger amenity improvements (bus
stops/stations) throughout FAX route system,
including concrete improvements, shelters,
lighting, signage, etc. Annual average $150k.Bus Stop Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project ID Street Name Project Description Project Type T-1 Bicycle
or
Pedestrian
Collisions
T-2
Project
Type
T-3 Potential
for Mode
Shift and
Greenhouse
Gas
Reduction
T-4
Location
Efficiency:
Population
Density Total Weighted
Project Information Traffic Control, Mode Shift and User Comfort Scoring B3
W Audubon Ave to W Nees Ave
to Gravel Haul Rd to W Alluvial
Ave to Harrison Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 10 4 6 1 21 60 B4 E Shepherd Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 8 4 6 2 20 57 B5
N Millbrook Ave [0.1 miles on E
Bullard Ave] Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 15 4 4 3 26 74 B9
W Bullard Ave to W Sierra Ave to
N Dante Ave to W San Jose Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 8 4 4 3 19 54 B11 E Barstow Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 10 4 6 2 22 63 B13 W Gettysburg Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 8 4 4 1 17 49 B14
N Valentine Ave to N Emerson Ave to Herndon
No. 39 Canal Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 0 4 4 2 10 29 B16 N Cornelia Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 8 4 4 2 18 51 B17
Along Herndon No 39 Canal (section on E
Shields Ave) to Mill No 36 Canal (section along E
McKinley Ave) to N Clovis Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 20 4 7 4 35 100 B18 E Dakota Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 15 4 6 2 27 77 B20 N Maple Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 0 4 4 1 9 26 B26 S Maple Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 15 4 6 3 28 80 B28
N Clovis Ave to Fancher No 6
Canal to Central No 23 Canal Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 10 4 7 1 22 63 B37 E Church Ave Priority Bikeway Network Active Transportation 0 4 4 2 10 29 PED-UN2 Calimyrna Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 0 4 7 0 11 31 PED-UN3 Chestnut/Belmont Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 0 4 7 1 12 34 PED-UN4 Chestnut/Olive Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 20 4 6 0 30 86 PED-UN5 Church/Elm Area Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 0 4 4 1 9 26 PED-UN6 Del Mar Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 0 4 6 1 11 31 PED-UN7 Florence Avenue to Balderas Elementary SchoolUnderserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 10 4 4 1 19 54 PED-UN8 Herndon/41 Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 0 4 7 0 11 31 PED-UN9 Hidalgo Elementary School NeighborhoodUnderserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 15 4 7 1 27 77 PED-UN10Jane Addams Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 20 4 6 1 31 89 PED-UN11Maple/Church Area Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 8 4 4 1 17 49 PED-UN13Norseman Elementary School NeighborhoodUnderserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 8 4 6 1 19 54 PED-UN14North Avenue Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 20 4 6 1 31 89 PED-UN16Roeding Park Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 0 4 4 0 8 23 PED-UN17Scandinavian Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 20 4 7 1 32 91 PED-UN18West of Edison Area Underserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 0 4 0 0 4 11 PED-UN19Yosemite Middle School NeighborhoodUnderserved Neighborhoods Active Transportation 20 4 7 1 32 91 Project ID Street Name Project Description Project Type T-1 Bicycle
or
Pedestrian
Collisions
T-2
Project
Type
T-3 Potential
for Mode
Shift and
Greenhouse
Gas
Reduction
T-4
Location
Efficiency:
Population
Density Total Weighted
Project Information Traffic Control, Mode Shift and User Comfort Scoring PED-PAA1 Downtown Fresno Pedestrian Activity Areas Active Transportation 20 4 7 1 32 91 PED-PAA2 Tower District - Olive Avenue Pedestrian Activity Areas Active Transportation 10 4 4 1 19 54 PED-PAA3 Van Ness Avenue - near Fresno City CollegePedestrian Activity Areas Active Transportation 8 4 4 1 17 49 PED-PAA4 Blackstone Avenue/Abby Street Pedestrian Activity Areas Active Transportation 20 4 7 2 33 94 PED-PAA5 Ventura Avenue Pedestrian Activity Areas Active Transportation 20 4 6 1 31 89 PED-SA1 Blackstone Avenue Pedestrian Safety Enhancement CorridorsActive Transportation 15 4 7 0 26 74 PED-SA2 Shaw Avenue Pedestrian Safety Enhancement CorridorsActive Transportation 20 4 7 1 32 91 PED-SA3 Shaw Avenue Pedestrian Safety Enhancement CorridorsActive Transportation 20 4 7 2 33 94 PED-SA4 West Avenue Pedestrian Safety Enhancement CorridorsActive Transportation 20 4 6 1 31 89 PED-SA5 First Street Pedestrian Safety Enhancement CorridorsActive Transportation 20 4 6 3 33 94 PED-SA6 Cedar Avenue Pedestrian Safety Enhancement CorridorsActive Transportation 20 4 6 2 32 91 PED-SA7 Cedar Avenue Pedestrian Safety Enhancement CorridorsActive Transportation 15 4 4 1 24 69 PED-SA8 Kings Canyon Road Pedestrian Safety Enhancement CorridorsActive Transportation 20 4 7 2 33 94 PED-SA9 Chestnut Avenue Pedestrian Safety Enhancement CorridorsActive Transportation 20 4 6 1 31 89 PED-SA10 Clovis Avenue Pedestrian Safety Enhancement CorridorsActive Transportation 20 4 7 1 32 91 PED-SA11 Butler Avenue Pedestrian Safety Enhancement CorridorsActive Transportation 15 4 4 2 25 71 B38
Southern Blackstone Avenue Smart Mobility
Strategy Class IV Bikeway Active Transportation 15 4 7 2 28 80
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/08/25)
553247v1
APPENDIX C
VMT MITIGATION PROJECT LIST AND SCORING
50% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 100% 22,080,033$ 9,822
Project ID Map Number Project Name Street Name From To Project Description Project
Category Project Cost City/FAX Comments
VMT Reduction
score Connectivity Score
Access and
Equity Score
Safety
Score
Funding
Score
Feasibility
Score
Weighted
Score
Fee Program
Project Costs
VMT
Reduction
Transportation Demand Management Projects
1 Mobile Ticketing and Trip Planning App Citywide Mobile Ticketing Trip Planning App TDM 2,500,000 2,500,000 - 2 Transit Marketing Program Citywide Transit Marketing Program TDM 500,000 500,000 - 3 Transportation Demand Management Coordinator Citywide Transportation Demand Management Coordinator TDM 525,960 525,960 - 4 Bike/Pedestrian Trip Trackers Citywide Bike/Ped Trip Trackers TDM 750,000 750,000 - 5 Intermodal Signage Citywide Intermodal Signage to connect transit and bicycle/pedestrian networksTDM 1,250,000 1,250,000 - VMT Nexus Study/CIP Administration and Update Nexus Study Update, 2030 100,000 1,500,000 - VMT Fee Program Document and EIR VMT Fee Program Document and Environmental Impact Report 500,000 500,000 - Transit Projects
T96 6 Frequency enhancement-Route 39 Clinton Ave Route Enhancement: Three new buses for 15 Minute Frequency on Route 39Transit 4,500,000 3 buses at $1.5m ea = $4.5 mil (FAX would provide 10-20% match for buses, depending upon state or federal) (Note:
the project cost should be increased to reflect the
appropriate cost of the buses) 85.92 80.0 76.7 90.9 32.2 50.0 75.9 900,000 1311 T39 7 Accessibility Improvements-Route 34 Southern Industrial Area Route Extension: 52 new ADA compliant stops for Southern Industrial service expansion-Route 34 Transit 1,700,000
52 stops x $32.5k ea = $1.7m (FAX would provide 20%
match for bus stops) 68.18 94.3 90.0 54.5 15.0 100.0 69.5 340,000 1041 T102 8 New route-Bullard Ave Bullard Ave Fresno State New Route: Four new buses and 72 new stops for Bullard Ave Crosstown RouteTransit 8,340,000 72 stops x $32.5k ea = $1.17m (FAX would provide 20%
match for bus stops)
4 buses at $1.5 ea = $6 mil (FAX would provide 10-20%
match for buses, depending upon state or federal) 74.92 91.4 66.7 90.9 3.8 50.0 67.7 1,668,000 1143 T126 9 New route-Church Ave Church Ave New Route: Four new buses and 68 new stops for Church Avenue Crosstown ServiceTransit 8,200,000 68 stops x $32.5k ea = $2.2m (FAX would provide 20%
match for bus stops)
4 buses at $1.5 ea = $6 mil (FAX would provide 10-20%
match for buses, depending upon state or federal) 75.00 91.4 83.3 72.7 3.9 50.0 67.6 1,640,000 1145 T130 10 New route-Willow Ave Willow Ave Shields
Clovis Community
College
New Route: Four new buses and 68 new stops for service on Willow Avenue from Shields and Clovis Community College Transit 8,200,000 68 stops x $32.5k ea = $2.2m (FAX would provide 20%
match for bus stops)
4 buses at $1.5 ea = $6 mil (FAX would provide 10-20%
match for buses, depending upon state or federal) 61.52 25.7 66.7 90.9 3.2 50.0 54.4 1,640,000 939 T47 11 Route Extension, Route 45 Ashlan Ave
Route Extension: 10 new stops to increase service on Route 45 (Note: the 2 buses have already been purchased; the cost of the stop improvements is still needed)Transit 325,000 10 stops x $32.5k ea = $325k (FAX would provide 20%
match for bus stops): 10 new stops to increase service on Route 45 (Note: the 2 buses have already been purchased; the cost of the stop improvements is still needed 42.96 68.6 60.0 90.9 5.7 100.0 54.0 65,000 656 T42 12 Route enhancement-Route 38 Cedar Ave Herndon Jensen Route Enhancement on Route 38 Cedar Ave Transit Signal Priority - Adaptive Signal Control on Cedar from Herndon to Jensen Transit 13,300,000 TSP plus curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements as well as striping (FAX would provide 10% match for capital
construction, depending upon state or federal) (Approx. $500k/intersection) (Applied for TIRCP, award pending)3.23 0.0 76.7 90.9 0.1 100.0 28.4 2,660,000 49 T45 13 Service Improvement, Route 32 First Street Route Enhancement, Frequency : Six new buses to increase service on Route 32Transit 9,000,000 6 buses at $1.5 mil ea = $9 mil (FAX would provide 10-20% match for buses, depending upon state or federal) 85.92 71.4 76.7 90.9 4.3 100.0 77.3 1,800,000 1311 Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects
B17 14 Priority Bikeway Network
Along Herndon No 39 Canal (section on E
Shields Ave) to Mill No 36 Canal (section
along E McKinley Ave) to N Clovis AveN Palm Ave
just
north of E Shields
Ave Priority Bikeway Network/Midtown Trail Bike 14,360,800 Class I -Midtown Trail - Fully Funded 8.58 97.1 73.3 100.0 0.2 100.0 41.4 - 131 B38 15 Southern Blackstone Improvements
Southern Blackstone Avenue Smart
Mobility Strategy Dakota AvenueHighway 180 Class IV Bikeway Bike 53,000,000 0.99 91.4 90.0 80.0 0.0 100.0 36.6 556,500 15 PED-SA5 16 Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridor First Street Dakota AvenueVentura AvenuePedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridors Pedestrian 5,000,000 Class IV funded Olive to Tulare 20.39 97.1 90.0 94.3 1.5 50.0 43.5 573,500 311 PED-PAA1 17 Pedestrian Activity Areas Downtown Fresno
South of
Divisadero Street
Northeast of
Highway 99,
Northwest of
Highway 41 Pedestrian Activity Areas Pedestrian 12,281,903 not done 48.72 88.6 96.7 91.4 1.5 50.0 57.2 1,408,734 744 PED-UN14 18 Underserved Neighborhood North Avenue Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Pedestrian 761,400 Ivy underconstruction
west of Lee not done
Tupman west not done, west done 0.02 82.9 90.0 88.6 0.0 50.0 31.2 87,333 0.2 PED-SA8 19 Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridor Kings Canyon Road/Cesar Chavez BlvdCedar Avenue Clovis Avenue Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridors Pedestrian 2,200,000 County 25.74 97.1 90.0 94.3 4.4 50.0 46.4 252,340 393 PED-UN7 20 Underserved Neighborhood Florence Avenue Chestnut Balderas
Elementary
School Underserved Neighborhoods Pedestrian 1,000,000 CDBG funded 0.01 82.9 90.0 54.3 0.0 50.0 27.7 110,000 0.1 PED-PAA2 21 Pedestrian Activity Areas Tower District - Olive Avenue Palm Avenue Van Ness AvenuePedestrian Activity Areas Pedestrian 4,038,063 Yosemite to Roosevelt completed recently 2.36 77.1 56.7 54.3 0.2 50.0 25.0 463,166 36 PED-UN19 22 Underserved Neighborhood Yosemite Middle School Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Pedestrian 896,904 CDBG funded 0.39 88.6 90.0 91.4 0.2 50.0 32.2 - 6 PED-PAA4 23 Pedestrian Activity Areas Blackstone Avenue/Abby Street Divisadero StreetShaw Avenue Pedestrian Activity Areas Pedestrian 14,265,555 38.76 97.1 96.7 94.3 1.0 50.0 53.3 1,636,259 591 PED-UN17 24 Underserved Neighborhood Scandinavian Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Pedestrian 1,336,020 Sierra Vista complete
Remaining long term - Per Streets 0.01 91.4 73.3 91.4 0.0 50.0 30.6 153,241 0.2 Appendix C - VMT Mitigation Project List and Scoring
Weighting
50% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 100% 22,080,033$ 9,822
Project ID Map Number Project Name Street Name From To Project Description Project
Category Project Cost City/FAX Comments
VMT Reduction
score Connectivity Score
Access and
Equity Score
Safety
Score
Funding
Score
Feasibility
Score
Weighted
Score
Fee Program
Project Costs
VMT
Reduction
Appendix C - VMT Mitigation Project List and Scoring
Weighting
Back-Up Projects
PED-SA9 Chestnut Avenue Tulare Street Butler Avenue Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridors Pedestrian 54,000 8.47 97.1 90.0 88.6 58.8 50.0 42.7 6,194 129 T49 Mobility as a Service - Explore and Implement Rideshare, Car Share, and Bike ShareTransit 25,000,000 Capital cost assumed by other providers 36.09 94.3 50.0 0.0 0.5 100.0 42.5 - 551 PED-SA3 Shaw Avenue
Blackstone
Avenue Maple Avenue Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridors Pedestrian 600,000 17.84 97.1 56.7 94.3 11.1 50.0 39.8 68,820 272 T38 Veterans Home System Expansion - Expand System to California Verterans HomeTransit 2,000,000 Capital cost assumed by other providers 10.70 94.3 83.3 54.5 2.0 100.0 38.8 - 163 PED-SA6 Cedar Avenue Dakota AvenueBelmont AvenuePedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridors Pedestrian 4,000,000 9.85 97.1 90.0 91.4 0.9 50.0 37.9 458,800 150 B26 S Maple Ave E McKinley AveE Church Ave Priority Bikeway Network Bike 3,989,400 Class II 1.74 97.1 90.0 80.0 0.2 100.0 37.6 457,584 27 PED-SA1 Blackstone Avenue Alluvial AvenueSierra Avenue Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridors Pedestrian 725,000 see blackstone smart mobility below 9.86 88.6 90.0 74.3 5.1 50.0 35.7 83,158 150 PED-SA11 Butler Avenue First Street Chestnut AvenuePedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridors Pedestrian 2,300,000 9.01 97.1 90.0 71.4 1.5 50.0 35.5 263,810 138 B5
N Millbrook Ave [0.1 miles on E
Bullard Ave] E Shepherd AveE Barstow Ave Priority Bikeway Network Bike 621,200 Class II 1.51 97.1 56.7 74.3 0.9 100.0 33.7 71,252 23 PED-PAA5 Ventura Avenue Downtown FresnoCedar Avenue Pedestrian Activity Areas Pedestrian 8,671,392 3.29 88.6 90.0 88.6 0.1 50.0 33.4 994,609 50 B18 E Dakota Ave N Maroa Ave N Millbrook AvePriority Bikeway Network Bike 1,812,600 Class II 0.50 97.1 56.7 77.1 0.1 100.0 33.4 207,905 8 PED-SA2 Shaw Avenue Brawley AvenueMarks Avenue Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridors Pedestrian 50,000 missing near Valentine and Brawley 3.58 71.4 73.3 91.4 26.9 50.0 33.1 5,735 55 B11 E Barstow Ave N Millbrook AveN Fruit Ave Priority Bikeway Network Bike 640,600 Class II 0.77 97.1 63.3 62.9 0.5 100.0 32.8 73,477 12 B28
N Clovis Ave to Fancher No 6
Canal to Central No 23 Canal
E McKinley Ave &
N Clovis Ave E Church Ave Priority Bikeway Network Bike 4,869,100 Class I 0.62 65.7 90.0 62.9 0.0 100.0 32.2 558,486 10 B16 N Cornelia Ave W Gettysburg AveW McKinley AvePriority Bikeway Network Bike 2,975,200 Class II 0.92 91.4 73.3 51.4 0.1 100.0 32.1 341,255 14 PED-SA7 Cedar Avenue
Kings Canyon
Road California AvenuePedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridors Pedestrian 1,500,000 2.94 91.4 90.0 68.6 0.7 50.0 31.5 172,050 45 PED-UN9 Hidalgo Elementary School Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Pedestrian 1,307,880 S/O 180 to Millbrook done except along 180 fencing 0.13 97.1 90.0 77.1 0.0 50.0 31.5 150,014 2 PED-UN10 Jane Addams Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Pedestrian 479,760 Missing on Marks
Floradora to Olive - missing 0.02 82.9 90.0 88.6 0.0 50.0 31.2 55,028 0 B37 E Church Ave S Maple Ave S Peach Ave Priority Bikeway Network Bike 1,356,300 Class II 0.10 91.4 90.0 28.6 0.0 100.0 31.1 155,568 2 B13 W Gettysburg Ave N Veterans BlvdN Cornelia AvePriority Bikeway Network Bike 4,374,700 Class II 0.29 85.7 73.3 48.6 0.0 100.0 30.9 501,778 4 PED-SA10 Clovis Avenue Tulare Street
East Park Circle
Drive Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridors Pedestrian 324,000 Fancher Creek project 0.94 82.9 73.3 91.4 1.1 50.0 30.3 37,163 14 PED-UN4 Chestnut/Olive Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Pedestrian 807,240 Hammond btw Recreation & Chestnut - missing
Recreation - Hammond to Hedges - missing 0.04 77.1 90.0 85.7 0.0 50.0 30.3 92,590 1 B14
N Valentine Ave to N Emerson Ave to
Herndon No. 39 Canal W Barstow AveN Palm Ave Priority Bikeway Network Bike 1,793,600 Class I 0.52 97.1 73.3 28.6 0.1 100.0 30.2 205,726 8 B9
W Bullard Ave to W Sierra Ave to
N Dante Ave to W San Jose Ave Veterans Blvd N Valentine AvePriority Bikeway Network Bike 3,752,200 Class II 0.98 82.9 56.7 54.3 0.1 100.0 29.9 430,377 15 PED-SA4 West Avenue Ashlan AvenueShields AvenuePedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridors Pedestrian 2,500,000 2.79 88.6 56.7 88.6 0.4 50.0 29.8 286,750 43 B20 N Maple Ave E Dakota Ave E McKinley AvePriority Bikeway Network Bike 544,600 Class II 0.12 97.1 73.3 25.7 0.1 100.0 29.7 62,466 2 B3
W Audubon Ave to W Nees Ave
to Gravel Haul Rd to W Alluvial
Ave to Harrison Ave N Friant Rd W Herndon TrailPriority Bikeway Network Bike 1,126,600 Class I 0.32 88.6 43.3 60.0 0.1 100.0 29.4 129,221 5 B4 E Shepherd Ave N Willow Ave N Friant Rd Priority Bikeway Network Bike 480,200 Class I 0.61 91.4 30.0 57.1 0.5 100.0 28.2 55,079 9 T1 ADA Bus Stop Accessibility Improvements Transit 1,500,000 High Priority Assuming. $500k per year for 3 years (FAX would provide 20% match for capital construction, assuming
federal funding) 0.00 51.4 56.7 71.4 0.0 100.0 28.0 - 0 PED-UN11 Maple/Church Area Underserved Neighborhoods Pedestrian 301,440 not done 0.04 82.9 90.0 48.6 0.0 50.0 27.2 34,575 1 T19 Systemwide Traffic-Signal Priority Transit 10,000,000 (Blackstone and Shaw Avenues completed) Cedar Avenue,
First Street, Fresno Street, Palm Avenue next priority) TSP plus curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements as well as striping. Approx. $500k/intersection (FAX would provide 20% match for capital construction, assuming federal funding)34.37 0.0 43.3 0.0 1.3 50.0 26.6 2,000,000 524 PED-UN13 Norseman Elementary School Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Pedestrian 803,520 not done - longer term/difficult project per Streets 0.02 97.1 56.7 54.3 0.0 50.0 25.8 92,164 0 PED-UN18 West of Edison Area Underserved Neighborhoods Pedestrian 103,260 Geary is not a street 0.01 91.4 90.0 11.4 0.0 50.0 24.3 11,844 0 PED-PAA3 Van Ness Avenue - near Fresno City CollegeOlive Avenue McKinley AvenuePedestrian Activity Areas Pedestrian 2,823,300 1.26 77.1 56.7 48.6 0.2 50.0 23.9 323,832 19 PED-UN3 Chestnut/Belmont Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Pedestrian 920,880 CMAQ Funded 0.02 97.1 56.7 34.3 0.0 50.0 23.8 - 0 PED-UN16 Roeding Park Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Pedestrian 908,184 not done 0.00 74.3 90.0 22.9 0.0 50.0 23.7 104,169 0 PED-UN6 Del Mar Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Pedestrian 1,197,720 Not done 0.01 91.4 56.7 31.4 0.0 50.0 23.0 137,378 0 T87 Blackstone/Shields Queue Jump Lane Transit 1,000,000 FAX not likely to pursue. 0.14 0.0 53.3 72.7 0.1 100.0 22.7 - 0 PED-UN5 Church/Elm Area Underserved Neighborhoods Pedestrian 86,340 Ivy complete 0.09 62.9 76.7 25.7 0.4 50.0 21.6 - 1 T31
Right of Way Acquisition - For bus to achieve ADA compliance of boarding, alighting and passegner amenities. Transit 3,000,000 High Priority Assuming $1 mil per year for 3 years (FAX would provide 20% match for capital, assuming federal funding)0.00 51.4 56.7 0.0 0.0 100.0 20.8 - 0 T86 Blackstone/Shaw Queue Jump Lane Transit 1,000,000 $1m/intersection (FAX would provide 30% match for capital, assuming federal funding) 0.14 0.0 10.0 72.7 0.1 100.0 18.3 300,000 2 PED-UN8 Herndon/41 Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Pedestrian 470,640 Not done 0.06 54.3 43.3 31.4 0.0 50.0 17.9 53,982 1 PED-UN2 Calimyrna Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Pedestrian 545,520 Bullard & Escalon not complete 0.07 48.6 43.3 31.4 0.0 50.0 17.4 62,571 1 T62
Associated Transit Improvements - Implement Passenger Amenity Improvements for Bus Stations, TIRCP funds for the high frequency network as reflected in the FTIPTransit 12,000,000 Multiple funding sources. (FAX would provide 0-20% match for capital, depending upon state or federal funding) 0.00 0.0 56.7 0.0 0.0 100.0 15.7 1,200,000 0 T16 Passenger Amenities Transit 2,059,000 Multiple funding sources. (FAX would provide 0-20% match for capital, depending upon state or federal funding) 0.00 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 100.0 11.7 - 0 50% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 100% 22,080,033$ 9,822
Project ID Map Number Project Name Street Name From To Project Description Project
Category Project Cost City/FAX Comments
VMT Reduction
score Connectivity Score
Access and
Equity Score
Safety
Score
Funding
Score
Feasibility
Score
Weighted
Score
Fee Program
Project Costs
VMT
Reduction
Appendix C - VMT Mitigation Project List and Scoring
Weighting
T48
New/Expanded Bus yard Facilities Construction - Purchase property for new bus yard expansion Transit 150,000,000 (Study is line T26) 0.00 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 11.0 - 0 T50 Real Time Passenger Information - Real Time Bus Arrival and DepartureTransit 3,000,000 FAX would provide 10-20% match for capital, depending
upon state or federal) 0.00 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 11.0 - 0 T55
Back-Up Energy Storage - Large Scale Energy Storage for Backup and Emergency Power for EV Chargers Transit 10,000,000 0.00 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 11.0 - 0 T57 Ambassador Program - Travel Training Program for Schools and other Social ServicesTransit 500,000 $500k/ year. Revisit to see if this can reduce VMTs. High priority. FAX would provide 10-20% match for capital,
depending upon state or federal) 0.00 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 11.0 - 0 T58 Enhanced Marketing Public Outreach - Outreach of Service Expansions Transit 1,000,000 $1 million/ year. Revisit to see if this can reduce VMTs. High priority. FAX would provide 10-20% match for capital,
depending upon state or federal) 0.00 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 11.0 - 0 T63 Bike Racks - on FAX Buses Transit 250,000 0.00 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 11.0 - 0 T64
Zero Emissions Buses and Supporting Infrastructure - Purchase Zero Emission Buses and Supporting Infrastructure to replace current Fleet Transit 250,000,000 0.00 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 11.0 - 0 T65
Zero Emissions Buses and Supporting Infrastructure - Purchase Zero Emission Buses and Supporting Infrastructure for transit expansion Transit 125,000,000 0.00 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 11.0 - 0 T134
Purchase and develop land in support of revitalization and mixed-use development along high capacity/high frequency transit corridors. Transit 5,000,000 0.00 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 6.0 - 0 T69
Transit Security Projects - Implement Security and Safety Projects on buses and at transit stations, access control, video surveillance, lighting, fire safety, etc. Transit 20,000,000 0.00 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 6.0 - 0
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/08/25)
553247v1
APPENDIX D
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Project ID Map Number Project Name Project Description City/FAX Comments Street Name From To Project
Category
Total Project
Cost
Fee Program
Project Costs
5 Year CIP
Anticipated
Expense
Non-Fee Funding
Sources Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Transportation Demand Management Projects
1 Mobile Ticketing and Trip Planning App Mobile Ticketing Trip Planning App Citywide TDM 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 - 1,500,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 2 Transit Marketing Program Transit Marketing Program Citywide TDM 500,000 500,000 250,000 - 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 3 Transportation Demand Management Coordinator Transportation Demand Management Coordinator Citywide TDM 525,960 525,960 300,000 - 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 4 Bike/Pedestrian Trip Trackers Bike/Ped Trip Trackers Citywide TDM 750,000 750,000 375,000 - 75,000 300,000 5 Intermodal Signage
Intermodal Signage to connect transit and
bicycle/pedestrian networks Citywide TDM 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 - 250,000 500,000 500,000 VMT Nexus Study/CIP Administration and Update Nexus Study Update, 2030 100,000 100,000 100,000 - 100,000 VMT Fee Program Document and EIR
VMT Fee Program Document and Environmental
Impact Report 500,000 500,000 500,000 - 500,000 Transit Projects
T96 6 Frequency enhancement-Route 39
Route Enhancement: Three new buses for 15
Minute Frequency on Route 39
3 buses at $1.5m ea = $4.5 mil (FAX would
provide 10-20% match for buses, depending upon
state or federal) (Note: the project cost should be
increased to reflect the appropriate cost of the
buses) Clinton Ave Transit 4,500,000 900,000 900,000 3,600,000 750,000 37,500 37,500 37,500 37,500 T39 7 Accessibility Improvements-Route 34
Route Extension: 52 new ADA compliant stops for
Southern Industrial service expansion-Route 34
52 stops x $32.5k ea = $1.7m (FAX would provide
20% match for bus stops) Southern Industrial Area Transit 1,700,000 340,000 340,000 1,360,000 71,500 143,000 71,500 54,000 T102 8 New route-Bullard Ave
New Route: Four new buses and 72 new stops for
Bullard Ave Crosstown Route
72 stops x $32.5k ea = $1.17m (FAX would
provide 20% match for bus stops)
4 buses at $1.5 ea = $6 mil (FAX would provide 10-
20% match for buses, depending upon state or
federal) Bullard Ave Fresno State Transit 8,340,000 1,668,000 1,668,000 6,672,000 0 1,204,000 308,000 104,000 52,000 T126 9 New route-Church Ave
New Route: Four new buses and 68 new stops for
Church Avenue Crosstown Service
68 stops x $32.5k ea = $2.2m (FAX would provide
20% match for bus stops)
4 buses at $1.5 ea = $6 mil (FAX would provide 10-
20% match for buses, depending upon state or
federal) Church Ave Transit 8,200,000 1,640,000 1,640,000 6,560,000 1,104,000 204,000 204,000 104,000 24,000 T130 10 New route-Willow Ave
New Route: Four new buses and 68 new stops for
service on Willow Avenue from Shields and Clovis
Community College
68 stops x $32.5k ea = $2.2m (FAX would provide
20% match for bus stops)
4 buses at $1.5 ea = $6 mil (FAX would provide 10-
20% match for buses, depending upon state or
federal) Willow Ave Shields
Clovis Community
College Transit 8,200,000 1,640,000 1,640,000 6,560,000 0 0 1,104,000 268,000 268,000 T47 11 Route Extension, Route 45
Route Extension: 10 new stops to increase service
on Route 45 (Note: the 2 buses have already been
purchased; the cost of the stop improvements is
still needed)
10 stops x $32.5k ea = $325k (FAX would provide
20% match for bus stops): 10 new stops to
increase service on Route 45 (Note: the 2 buses
have already been purchased; the cost of the
stop improvements is still needed Ashlan Ave Transit 325,000 65,000 65,000 260,000 65,000 T42 12 Route enhancement-Route 38
Route Enhancement on Route 38 Cedar Ave Transit
Signal Priority - Adaptive Signal Control on Cedar
from Herndon to Jensen
TSP plus curb, gutter, and sidewalk
improvements as well as striping (FAX would
provide 10% match for capital construction,
depending upon state or federal) (Approx.
$500k/intersection) (Applied for TIRCP, award
pending) Cedar Ave Herndon Jensen Transit 13,300,000 2,660,000 2,660,000 10,640,000 532,000 532,000 532,000 532,000 532,000 T45 13 Service Improvement, Route 32
Route Enhancement, Frequency : Six new buses to
increase service on Route 32
6 buses at $1.5 mil ea = $9 mil (FAX would
provide 10-20% match for buses, depending upon
state or federal) First Street Transit 9,000,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 7,200,000 0 1,500,000 300,000 Appendix D - VMT Reduction Program: Capital Improvement Plan Projected Expenditures
Project ID Map Number Project Name Project Description City/FAX Comments Street Name From To Project
Category
Total Project
Cost
Fee Program
Project Costs
5 Year CIP
Anticipated
Expense
Non-Fee Funding
Sources Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Appendix D - VMT Reduction Program: Capital Improvement Plan Projected Expenditures
Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects
B17 14 Priority Bikeway Network Priority Bikeway Network/Midtown TrailClass I -Midtown Trail - Fully Funded Along Herndon No 39 Canal (section
on E Shields Ave) to Mill No 36 Canal
(section along E McKinley Ave) to N
Clovis Ave N Palm Ave
just
north of E Shields
Ave Bike 14,360,800 - - 14,360,800 B38 15 Southern Blackstone Improvements Class IV Bikeway Southern Blackstone Avenue Smart
Mobility Strategy Dakota AvenueHighway 180 Bike 53,000,000 556,500 52,443,500 PED-SA5 16 Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridor Pedestrian Safety Enhancement CorridorsClass IV funded Olive to Tulare First Street Dakota AvenueVentura AvenuePedestrian 5,000,000 573,500 573,500 4,426,500 286,750 286,750 PED-PAA1 17 Pedestrian Activity Areas Pedestrian Activity Areas not done Downtown Fresno South of
Divisadero Street
Northeast of
Highway 99,
Northwest of
Highway 41 Pedestrian 12,281,903 1,408,734 704,367 10,873,169 704,367 PED-UN14 18 Underserved Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Ivy underconstruction
west of Lee not done
Tupman west not done, west done North Avenue Neighborhood Pedestrian 761,400 87,333 87,333 674,067 43,666 43,666 PED-SA8 19 Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Corridor Pedestrian Safety Enhancement CorridorsCounty Kings Canyon Road/Cesar Chavez BlvdCedar AvenueClovis Avenue Pedestrian 2,200,000 252,340 252,340 1,947,660 126,170 126,170 PED-UN7 20 Underserved Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods CDBG funded Florence Avenue Chestnut Balderas
Elementary
School Pedestrian 1,000,000 110,000 110,000 890,000 55,000 55,000 PED-PAA2 21 Pedestrian Activity Areas Pedestrian Activity Areas Yosemite to Roosevelt completed recentlyTower District - Olive Avenue Palm Avenue Van Ness AvenuePedestrian 4,038,063 463,166 463,166 3,574,897 231,583 231,583 PED-UN19 22 Underserved Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods CDBG funded Yosemite Middle School
Neighborhood Pedestrian 896,904 - - 896,904 PED-PAA4 23 Pedestrian Activity Areas Pedestrian Activity Areas Blackstone Avenue/Abby StreetDivisadero StreetShaw Avenue Pedestrian 14,265,555 1,636,259 1,636,259 12,629,296 818,130 818,130 PED-UN17 24 Underserved Neighborhood Underserved Neighborhoods Sierra Vista complete
Remaining long term - Per Streets Scandinavian Neighborhood Pedestrian 1,336,020 153,241 76,621 1,182,779 76,621 Expenditure 3,996,000 3,974,000 3,813,500 3,938,300 4,169,800 Revenue 3,978,436 3,978,436 3,978,436 3,978,436 3,978,436 Surplus/Deficit (17,564) 4,436 164,936 40,136 (191,364) Total Expenditure
Total Revenue
Total Surplus/Deficit
19,891,586
19,892,178
592
VE H I C L E MI L E S TR A V E L E D RE D U C T I O N PR O G R A M A N D NE X U S ST U D Y SE P T E M B E R 2 0 2 5 FR E S N O, CA L I F O R N I A
P:\A-E\CFO2101_Fresno VMT Mitigation Program\Report\VMT Reduction Program.docx (09/08/25)
553247v1
APPENDIX E
SAMPLE FEE CALCULATIONS
2019 Mitigation Fee
Project Non-Retail Square Footage (TSF) (a)
Project employment (b)
Project VMT per employee (c)
VMT per employee Threshold (d)
Project excess VMT per employee
(e =c-d)
Total Project excess VMT
(f=e*b)
Fee per 1 mile of VMT reduction
(g) 295$
Total VMT reduction fees
(h=g*f) 362,260$
VMT reduction fees per KSF
(i=h/a) 403$
2019 Mitigation Fee
Project Non-Retail Square Footage (TSF) (a)
Project employment (b)
Project VMT per employee (c)
VMT per employee Threshold (d)
Project excess VMT per employee
(e =c-d)
Total Project excess VMT
(f=e*b)
Fee per 1 mile of VMT reduction
(g) 295$
Total VMT reduction fees
(h=g*f) 263,378$
VMT reduction fees per KSF
(i=h/a) 1,756$
4.0 Industrial Facility - VMT Analysis
307
29.6 25.6
900
1,228.0
2.2 892.8
Medical Building - VMT Analysis
150
406
27.8 25.6
2019 Mitigation Fee
Project Households (a)
Project Population (b)
Project VMT per capita (c)
VMT per capita Threshold (d)1
Project excess VMT per capita
(e =c-d)
Total Project excess VMT
(f=e*b)
Fee per 1 mile of VMT reduction
(g) 295$
Total VMT reduction fees
(h=g*f) 45,815$ VMT reduction fees per household (i=h/a) 305$
2019 Mitigation Fee
Project Households (a)
Project Population (b)
Project VMT per capita (c)
VMT per capita Threshold (d)1
Project excess VMT per capita
(e =c-d)
Total Project excess VMT
(f=e*b)
Fee per 1 mile of VMT reduction (g) 295$
Total VMT reduction fees
(h=g*f) 647,809$ VMT reduction fees per household (i=h/a) 3,239$
1 VMT per capita threshold = 87% of County VMT per capita (16.1). County is the region used VMT calculator tool (v1.37) for VMT analysis. 1 VMT per capita threshold = 87% of County VMT per capita (16.1). County is the region used VMT calculator tool (v1.37) for VMT analysis.
0.3 155.3
3.6 2,196.0
Single Family Residential Development - VMT
Analysis
200
610
17.6 14.0
Multi Family Residential Development - VMT Analysis
150
518
14.3 14.0
2019 Mitigation Fee
Project Retail Square Footage (TSF) (a)
Roadway VMT with project (b)
Roadway VMT without project (c)
Total Project excess VMT (d=b-c)
Fee per 1 mile of VMT reduction (e) 295$
Total VMT reduction fees (f=d*e) 950,068$
VMT reduction fees per TSF (g=f/a) 9,501$
3,220.6
Retail Development - VMT Analysis
100
22,846,893
22,843,672
Within entire Fresno County