CITY COUNCIL SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL 7-27--26

7 In general, the Mitigation Fee Act requires local agencies that establish, increase, or impose a fee as a condition of approval of a development project to do the following: • Identify the purpose of the fee; • Identify the use to which the fee is to be put; if the use is ﬁnancing public facilities, the facilities shall be identiﬁed; • Determine how there is a reasonable relationship (i.e., proportionality) between the need for the public facility and the type of project being developed on which the fee is imposed; and • Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development upon which the fee is imposed.6 In establishing a city-wide development impact fee program, a city is required to prepare and rely upon a robust fee nexus study to identify the improvements at issue and validate the amount of fees being implemented in connection therewith.7 The Mitigation Fee Act also provides that a fee shall not include costs attributable to existing deﬁciencies in public facilities, but may include costs attributable to increased demand for such facilities reasonably related to the development project in order to (i) refurbish existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service or (ii) achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the general plan (see Gov. Code § 66001(g)). D. Local Statutory Requirements: Pleasanton Municipal Code In Pleasanton, the City’s Municipal Code addresses a developer’s obligations with respect to the construction of public improvements and the payment of impact fees. Importantly here, the Municipal Code provisions do not supersede the above-referenced federal and state constitutional and statutory provisions. The most relevant of these provisions is Chapter 3.26 of the Municipal Code which establishes the framework for City’s TDF, discussed above. As Developer’s obligation to pay applicable TDF fees is not in dispute, this memorandum need not consider the provisions of the Municipal Code further. IV. THERE IS NO LEGAL NEXUS TO JUSTIFY IMPOSITION OF FUTURE EL CHARRO EXTENSION COSTS ON TO THE PROJECT. As noted above, the City has previously taken the position that, based on the Planning Documents, the costs for the Future El Charro Extension should be allocated 50-50 between developers in the East Pleasanton Specific Plan area (collectively) and the City. For this position to have merit under the applicable law, the City would (1) need to establish that the 6 The first three of the foregoing requirements apply to generally applicable, legislatively adopted fees, with the fourth requirement being judicially construed to apply only to ad hoc fees. 7 In addition, among other requirements, the Mitigation Fee Act requires annual reporting on fees collected and spent, the adoption of capital improvement plans, the segregation of fees from other revenues, the return of unused fees and third-party audit and other administrative provisions.