City planning staff presented the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction Program and related environmental impact report to the Fresno City Council on Oct. 16, detailing a two‑track mitigation approach and a mitigation fee intended to fund transit and active‑transportation projects.

Sofia Pagalades, a planner with the Planning and Development Department, described the program as a response to state CEQA changes (SB 743) that shifted environmental analysis from level of service to vehicle miles traveled. The proposed program offers two mitigation paths: (1) an urban design calculator that lets applicants reduce a project’s VMT by adding site design elements (density, connectivity, transit access, EV charging, etc.); or (2) payment of a VMT mitigation fee to fund a portfolio of active‑transportation and transit projects already identified in adopted plans. Pagalades said the fee was calculated at $295 per vehicle mile traveled of excess VMT and that the nexus study projects roughly $20 million in fee revenue over five years for an initial set of projects.

The fee mechanics and list of projects drew extended questioning from council members and local builders. Industry representatives told the council they overall support a program to provide certainty and avoid lengthy project‑level EIRs, but asked for flexibility that would allow large master‑planned developments to self‑mitigate (for example, by adding mixed uses, schools or on‑site retail) and avoid paying a fee that would otherwise be passed to homebuyers. Builders said the program’s time savings versus a project‑level EIR are important, but urged clearer options so projects that genuinely reduce VMT through land‑use changes are not forced to pay full fees.

Staff and the program consultant, Ambrish Mukherjee of LSA, said the program does allow self‑mitigation: projects that demonstrate VMT below the city threshold through modeling and the urban design calculator do not owe a fee. Mukherjee explained the program’s prioritized project list was drawn from the city’s Active Transportation Plan, FAX short and long‑range transit plans, and other adopted documents; projects were scored for VMT‑reduction potential, cost and shovel‑readiness. Council members sought more detail showing project‑level VMT reduction values and a district‑level view of how fees would vary across the city.

Several council members asked staff to return with more time for council review and with detailed mappings (a list for council districts showing per‑project VMT reduction potential and the effect on fee rates). Sofia Pagalades told the council a revised nexus could be prepared in about six weeks once an updated project list is provided; however, a full recirculation and final hearing would add more time. After discussion council directed staff to bring the item back on Oct. 30 for further consideration. Staff also noted that the VMT mitigation fee program would only be implemented after adopting the nexus/fee resolution and amending the master fee schedule.

The council’s questions focused on predictable fee amounts for projects in different parts of the city, whether fees could be reduced or eliminated for master‑planned mixed‑use developments, and how the city will prioritize projects funded by fees. Builders said uncertainty is holding pipeline projects and that the program’s certainty is welcome, but asked for explicit flexibility and a transparent district‑level map showing likely fee amounts. Staff agreed to provide the underlying project lists, the VMT reduction scoring, and worked examples for the council before the Oct. 30 hearing.