El Dorado County conditioned issuance of George Sheetz's residential building permit on a requirement that he pay a $23,420 traffic impact mitigation fee designed largely to offset impacts of new commercial development in addition to the relatively small traffic impacts of his proposed home. The court below upheld the exaction under a state court created rule that the County's use of a "rational" legislative process to establish the fee program satisfies both the nexus requirement of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), and the rough proportionality requirement of Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). The court therefore held that the County's legislative requirement that residential developers pay for impacts caused by commercial development satisfied Nollan and Dolan.

1. Does the Takings Clause's protection against unconstitutional permit conditions encompass an evidentiary requirement (as opposed to a legislative process) by which the government bears the burden to demonstrate that its development permit exaction complies with Dolan's "rough proportionality" standard?

2. Can an impact fee be roughly proportional when imposed on one discrete class of development (residential) for the purpose of addressing impacts caused by another discrete class of development (commercial)?

Does the Takings Clause's protection against unconstitutional permit conditions encompass an evidentiary requirement by which the government must demonstrate compliance with Dolan's 'rough proportionality' standard, and can an impact fee be roughly proportional when imposed on residential development to address impacts caused by commercial development?