CITY COUNCIL SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL 7-27--26

8 required essential nexus existed; and (2) also need to demonstrate the basis for the proposed 50-50 allocation was reasonably proportionate. Both of the foregoing elements must be established, which becomes even more challenging given the few remaining development proposals that may move forward in the East Pleasanton Specific Plan area (thereby resulting in a tremendous cost burden being imposed on relatively few private parties), and the City’s inability to contribute its “portion” due to substantial budgetary constraints. For the reasons set forth herein and further supported by a thoughtful review of the record, the necessary legal findings cannot be made to support the foregoing position with respect to the Project. In particular: • Failure to establish essential nexus: While the Future El Charro Extension would undoubtedly benefit the City’s overall traffic network and has been contemplated as important regional traffic infrastructure since the 1990s, the record does not demonstrate (1) that the Project triggers this improvement, (2) to what extent the extension would also distinctly and specifically benefit the eventual residents and other users of the Project, or (3) why a more modest set of improvements (e.g., two lanes instead of four; extension of Busch Road to Stanley Boulevard only) would not be sufficient. • Failure to establish any evidence of proportionality: Even if one assumes arguendo there is a connection between the impacts of the Project and the Future El Charro Extension, the lack of proportionality is patent. o Because of the nature of these regional improvements and the enormous costs associated therewith, on their face, the City’s past demands clearly exceeded any reasonable notion of proportionality. This is particularly apparent given that the City has not committed to any contribution, and there is a paucity of other developments upon which the City has the legal right to impose fair share obligations thereon. o The asserted 50-50 allocation appears arbitrary, coming to fruition entirely “per direction from the City”; recent attempts via the 2025 F&P Report to justify this allocation seem pretextual at best. o The 2025 F&P Report clearly suggests that the Future El Charro Extension could function adequately as a two-lane road. The implication that necessarily follows from this conclusion is that even if there were some nexus to the Project for a two-lane road (which there is not), the proposed four-lane road would be oversized for the benefit of all City residents. Given the long-planned nature of the Future El Charro Extension as backbone infrastructure to serve the existing and planned future growth of the City and the broader region (contemplated since at least the 1990s), combined with the paucity of information or data to support any legal nexus between the Future El Charro Extension and the Project or the proposed 50-50 allocation, there is no basis under applicable law for the City to require Developer to contribute any amounts towards the costs of the Future El Charro Extension due to the failure to satisfy the requisite legal tests.