CITY COUNCIL SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL 7-27--26

3 development was contemplated for the area, the City has planned for the extension of El Charro Road from Stoneridge Drive to Stanley Boulevard (as depicted in Exhibit A hereto). These planning efforts included assessments in (1) the City’s 2005 General Plan (and related EIR) (adopted in 2009); (2) the 2015 East Pleasanton Specific Plan (and related EIR) (never adopted); and (3) recent cost assessments and impact fee studies, including City’s 2018 development impact fee nexus study (“2018 Nexus Study”), its 2024 update thereto (“2024 Nexus Study”) and a Project-specific El Charro Road Extension Assessment prepared by Fehr & Peers in January 2025 (“2025 F&P Report”). These various documents are referred to collectively as “Planning Documents” in this memorandum. In terms of the allocation of costs for the Future El Charro Extension between City and applicable developers, the Planning Documents do not include any stated basis or other support for the allocation of such costs historically proposed by the City. Instead, it appears that the City directed — without explanation — that 50 percent of the total costs would be covered through the City’s Transportation Development Fee (“TDF”) program (and/or other City revenue) with the remaining 50 percent to be covered by the “East Pleasanton” developers, collectively. For example, the 2018 Nexus Study notes that while cost estimates for the road works for the Future El Charro Extension were prepared by BKF and Fehr & Peers, the allocation of these costs between the East Pleasanton developers and the TDF was set “per direction from the City” without any rationale being provided for this 50-50 allocation. While this 50-50 allocation was not referenced in the 2024 Nexus Study for some unexplained reason, the City has continued to rely on it until recently.2 Finally, the 2025 F&P Report is also not helpful as it does not establish a reasonable basis for allocating any of the expected benefits of the Future El Charro Extension to the Project. III. APPLICABLE LAW The following is a summary of relevant constitutional and statutory provisions governing the imposition of development exactions, including federal and state constitutional principles, relevant state statutes (i.e., the Mitigation Fee Act), and finally, relevant local Pleasanton Municipal Code provisions. A. Common Law/Constitutional Provisions Relating to the Police Power The legal basis for all land use regulation is the police power of a local agency to protect the public health, safety and welfare of its residents. (See Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 32-33 (1954).) The police power is set forth in the California Constitution, which confers on local agencies the power to “make and enforce within [their] limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conﬂict with general laws.” (Cal. Const. art. XI, § 7.) Thus, land use regulations are a manifestation of the local police powers conferred by the California Constitution, rather than reﬂecting an exercise of speciﬁc statutory authority. (See Scrutton v. County of Sacramento, 275 Cal. App. 2d 412, 417 (1969).) 2 It is important to note that, without explanation, Attachment 1 of the 2024 Nexus Study deleted the reference to the 50-50 allocation. The reason for this deletion is unclear, particularly given the City’s recent recitation of this 50-50 allocation.