Exhibit M
Public Comment Letters
Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction Program
# Date Commenter Content
1. 9/9/25 David Padilla, Branch
Chief, Caltrans
Confirming coordination with
Caltrans on program
implementation affecting the state
highway system
2. 10/3/25 John Kinsey, Wanger Jones
Helsley PC, on behalf of
Granville Homes
Expressing concerns about VMT
Reduction Program applicability,
requesting exceptions, including
the preparation of project EIRs to
override VMT
3. 10/7/25 Dennis Gaab, Vice
President of Forward
Planning and Land
Development, Century
Communities
Expressing support for the VMT
Reduction Program
4. 10/7/25 Drew Phelps, Director of
Forward Planning,
Woodside Homes
Asking questions about frequency
of program updates, implications
of COG model update, timing of fee
applicability
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” DISTRICT 6 OFFICE
1352 WEST OLIVE AVENUE |P.O. BOX 12616 |FRESNO, CA 93778-2616 (559) 981-7284| FAX (559) 488-4195 | TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
September 9, 2025
City of Fresno
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Nexus Study for
Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction Program
GTS #: https://ld-igr-gts.dot.ca.gov/district/6/report/36990
SENT VIA EMAIL
Mx. Sophia Pagoulatos, Planning Manager
City of Fresno
2600 Fresno St. #3043
Fresno, CA 93721
[email protected]
Dear Mx. Pagoulatos:
Caltrans has completed the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Nexus Study for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction Program proposing to implement a VMT Reduction Program to reduce VMT and associated greenhouse gas emissions, while streamlining the environmental compliance process for development projects that generate vehicle trips.
The project site is located in the City of Fresno including surrounding sphere of influence.
The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. The Local Development Review (LDR) process reviews land use projects and plans through the lenses of our mission and state planning priorities of infill, conservation, and travel‐efficient development. To ensure a safe and efficient transportation system, we encourage early consultation and coordination with local jurisdictions and project proponents on all development projects that utilize the multimodal transportation network.
Caltrans provides the following comments consistent with the State’s smart mobility goals that support a vibrant economy and sustainable communities:
1. Caltrans Role & SHS Coordination
Acknowledge & clarify Caltrans approvals. Please affirm that Caltrans is a responsible agency for any Program-funded project modifying, adding to, or working within SHS right- of-way, and commit to early coordination prior to scoping, design selection, and permitting. This includes timely Encroachment Permit engagement for work affecting ramps, ramp terminals, or SHS frontage.
Mx. Sophia Pagoulatos– DEIR/Nexus Study for Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction Program September 9, 2025
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.”
2. Caltrans Role & SHS Coordination
A. Operational analysis expectations. For Program-funded improvements on/near the SHS, evaluate ramp queue spillback, weaving/merge safety, and emergency access during permit review, consistent with Caltrans Traffic Impact Study expectations.
B. Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies historically provided guidance on preparing traffic impact studies for projects affecting the State Highway System, including evaluation of operating conditions and target Levels of Service (LOS). Previously, Caltrans aimed to maintain a target LOS between “C” and “D” on state highway facilities, with some flexibility at the LOS D/E threshold when improvements were infeasible. The Guide also recommended maintaining existing measures of effectiveness (MOE) where facilities operated below target LOS. (Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies- pages 4.16-8)
Caltrans no longer considers LOS as the primary metric for traffic impact evaluations. Instead, applicants and agencies are directed to follow the Caltrans Local Development Review (LDR) – Safety Review Guidelines for current operational and safety assessment criteria during permit reviews and traffic impact studies.
For up-to-date methodology and expectations regarding ramp queue spillback, weaving/merge safety, emergency access, and other operational factors on or near the State Highway System, please refer to the Caltrans LDR-Safety Review Guidelines.
3. Traffic Management Plan (TMP)
Program-level TMP commitment: Require a Caltrans-approved TMP (including Lane Closure System entries, allowable work windows, and detour coordination) for any Program-funded project that affects the SHS. Make TMP approval a condition of Encroachment Permit issuance.
4. Comments from previous Caltrans comment letter dated July 21,2025, still apply.
Caltrans appreciates the City’s leadership in implementing a VMT-focused program.
Please continue to include Caltrans on project document circulations and coordinate with District 6 regarding any projects may affect the State Highway System. We look forward to collaborating on safe, reliable, and effective VMT-reducing improvements.
Mx. Sophia Pagoulatos– DEIR/Nexus Study for Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction Program September 9, 2025
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” If you have any other questions, please call or email: Keyomi Jones, Associate Transportation Planner at (559) 981-7284 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Mr. Dave Padilla, Branch Chief,
Local Development Review
T I MOTHY JONES "
MICHAELS. HELSLEY
RILEY C. WALTER
PATRICK D . TO OLE
SCOTT D . LAIRD
JOHN P. KINSEY
KUR T F . VOTE
ROBERT E . DONLAN
TROY T. EWEL L
JAY A. CHRISTOFFERSON
AMANDA G . HEBESHA ..
PETER M . JONESt
JEFFREY B . PAPE!
MARISA L . BALCHt
DEBORAH K. BOYETT
STEVEN K . VOTE
NICOLAS R . CARDELLA
GIULIO A . SANCHEZ
KATHLEEN D . DEVANEY
CRAIG A . CARNES, JR . f
A l s o •d• 1tl1 d ,n W 1sh 1n gt on
Al 1 0 1dm 1t l1d 1n Idaho
E 1111 ri ltu
f 0 1 Coun s1I
tt A l s o 1d1111lled 1n Tt l lS
WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
ATTORNEYS
265 EAST RIVER PARK CIRCLE, SUITE 310
FRESNO , CALIFORNIA 93720
AND
400 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 2550
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
MAILING ADDRESS
POST OFFICE BOX 28340
FRESNO , CALIFORNIA 93729
TELEPHONE
(559) 233-4800
FAX
(559) 233 -933 0
Website :
www . wjhattorneys.com
Writer ' s E-Ma ll Address :
@wjhattorneys . com
October 3, 2025
VIA E-MAIL & UNITED STATES MAIL
Jennifer Clark
Planning Director
CITY OF FRESNO
Sophia Pagoulatos
Planning Manager
City of Fresno
SHAWNDA M . GRADY !
ETHAN E . MORA t
BENJAMIN C . WEST
HUNTER C. CASTRO
STEPHANIE M . HOSMAN
IAN J . QUINN t t
KEVIN W . BURS E Y
RACHELL . POMBO
NATHAN J . MART I N
COLLEEN E . L ITTLE
DANIKA E. JONES
DANIEL J . FREA
J E SSICA L . V I VED
JOSHUA P . JEND I AN
RACHE LL . ALSTROM
HANNAH L . RAVIZZA
OLIVER W . WANG E R •••
LEGAL ADM I NISTRATOR
LYNN M . HOFFMAN
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
2600 Fresno Street, Room 3065
Fresno, CA 93721
E-mail: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Re: Comments of Granville Homes, Inc. on Vehicle
Miles Traveled Reduction Program and Nexus
Study
Dear Ms. Clark and Ms. Pagoulatos:
I am writing on behalf of Granville Homes, Inc. ("Granville") to provide comments on the City of Fresno's (the "City") proposed Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction Program (the "Program"). We appreciate your consideration of these comments.
Granville understands that the Program would require that projects utilize the City's Urban Design Calculator ("UDC") to reduce a project's potentially significant VMT impacts to less than significant. (Nexus Study at 3.) Then, if the "project results in a significant VMT impact even with the UDC," a project "would be required to further mitigate VMT impacts by making 'fair share' payments into [a] bank to cover the cost of identified VMT reducing projects in the proposed VMT Reduction Program." (Id.)
As an initial matter, the City should clarify that the VMT Reduction Program would not apply to projects with applications that have already been deemed complete, and that are
WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
October 3, 2025
Page2
currently undergoing environmental review.1 From a practical perspective, the forced retroactive application of the Program would cost applicants significant resources and delay, when they have already engaged consultants and experts to assess and mitigate VMT through other means. This would result in completely overhauling EIRs and traffic impact studies, as well as significantly delaying projects that would provide much needed housing to Fresnans. As a result, applicants whose applications have already been deemed complete should be exempted from the program.
This is also consistent with the law. Specifically, the VMT Reduction Program is best characterized as a uniformly applied development policy or standard rather than a "development impact fee" under the Mitigation Fee Act. CEQA expressly authorizes lead agencies to adopt and apply "uniformly applied development policies or standards , such as ... transportation demand management requirements, parking ratios, or trip reduction programs, which are applied on a citywide or area-wide basis to substantially lessen a project's potential impacts .... " (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(2)(A) [emphasis added].) California courts have recognized that mitigation may lawfully take the form of standardized, programmatic measures that are applied across projects. (See, e.g., Save Our Peninsula Comm. v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 140- 141.)
This is particularly true for tentative maps. Because the City's VMT Reduction Program operates as a CEQA-based policy standard designed to ensure consistency with state VMT reduction mandates-rather than a facility fee structured under Gov. Code§ 66000-it falls within the category of "ordinances, policies, and standards" addressed in Fresno Municipal Code § 15-3306 and other similar statutes. Accordingly, once the applicant's tentative map is deemed complete, Section 15-3306 vests a project against subsequent changes in ordinances, policies, and standards, including the newly adopted VMT Reduction Program.
The City should also consider reasonable exceptions to the VMT Reduction Program. Specifically, rather than imposing a one-size fits all approach on current and future applicants, the City should instead modify the Program to provide the flexibility to the City and developers who commit to preparing an Environmental Impact Report to reduce potentially significant impacts to VMT through alternative means.
A uniform approach to permitting decisions can stifle and frustrate innovative solutions to reduce VMT, simply because they are not recognized in the UDC. Strategies not present within the UDC include, for example, trip suppression (i.e., through telecommuting and other means); trip reduction programs; project-specific transit solutions; dynamic curb and parking management; neighborhood-scale services (i.e., 15-Minute City concepts); cross-jurisdictional coordination; and any number of existing and future technologies that may develop over the next several years. It would be a mistake to disincentivize alternative and innovative methods of reducing VMT.
1 For example, the environmenta l review process is well underway for Granville's Tentative Tract Maps Nos. 6507 and 6511, both of which have received "Technical Verification Certification" letters from City staff. 4903-5887-8575, V. 1
WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
October 3, 2025
Finally, the City Council should maintain the flexibility to ovenide potentially significant impacts to VMT. Many categories of projects generate VMT, but it would make little sense to encumber each and every applicant and end-user with those fees. This includes, for example, high-density projects or projects of regional importance that could be rendered infeasible by the Program. Maintaining the flexibility to adopt a statement of overriding considerations would help maintain the City Council's discretionary decisionmaking authority and allow the City's elected representatives to make policy decisions about projects that are critically important to the City.
Thank you for your attention to these comments.
ubmitted,
( ~~
John P. Kinsey
cc: Andrew Janz, Esq. (via email)
4903-5887-8575 , V. 1
From: Phelps, Andrew
To: Jennifer Clark
Cc: Sophia Pagoulatos; Israel Trejo
Subject: VMT follow-up: a few questions
Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 3:56:12 PM
Attachments: image001.png
External Email: Use caution with links and attachments
Good afternoon Jennifer, Sophia, and Israel,
I hope you’re all doing well. Thank you again for taking the time and effort to discuss the VMT reduction program and fee with the building industry representatives last week. I am in strong agreement that a program like the one proposed which, as you said, Jennifer, provides the greatest “bang for the buck,” is the best path for addressing projects that require mitigation. I plan to provide formal support from Woodside and within BIA discussions but, in the meantime, have a couple of questions I’m hoping to understand a bit better:
1. How often are you proposing this fee be updated? Will it be annually with CCI (or similar metric) or will it only adjust when a new set of CIP projects are identified?
2. I was surprised to hear that the COG model update is now complete – I understand that this will adjust the formula for the fee, so this ties to my question above. Of course, the denominator will fall, which would, presumably, raise the fee for the remaining unmitigated VMTs. However, with less overall VMTs to reduce citywide, I would assume that the numerator would also fall, as there would be a reduced scope of projects. Maybe, after incorporating both revisions, the result to the fee is a wash, but I am curious how the City is thinking about this and similar scenarios moving forward. Can you share any thoughts on how this is being addressed?
3. Finally, a little more of a technical question, but when do you anticipate the fee would be applicable? As with other transportation fees, where the impact is not felt until the project is occupied, I would imagine this would be a similar scenario and the fee, if needed for mitigation, could be deferred to building permit. Is this how staff is currently considering it?
I don’t anticipate that any answers to these questions will change my position of support, and I appreciate you considering them. Big thanks to you and your teams once again for undertaking the effort to create and implement this program.
Thanks!
Drew Phelps
Director of Forward Planning | Central Valley Division
[email protected]
Cell: 559-920-9591