Eugene Planning Commission. <br />December 11, 2013 <br />Page 2 <br />Attachment A PC Final order (PDT 13-1) <br />findings explaining (1) why those policies are or are not mandatory approval, criteria, and (2) <br />whether the policies require any additional consideration even if they are not mandatory approval <br />criteria. If the Planning Commission determines that consideration of those policies is not <br />required, the Planning Commission could also choose to make alternative findings that, even <br />though consideration of the policies is not required, approval of the PTJD is nonetheless <br />consistent with those policies. <br />2. Exaction Primer <br />In order to approve any proposed development, the local decision maker must be able to <br />point to sufficient evidence and rationale demonstrating that each and every approval criterion is <br />satisfied.. If an approval criterion is not or cannot be satisfied, then the application should be <br />denied. Sometimes a particular approval criterion can be satisfied, but only if a condition of <br />approval is imposed. <br />Where that condition of approval is the requirement that an applicant or property owner <br />dedicate land for public use, the local government must make constitutional findings justifying <br />the exaction (often referred to as Dolan findings). The fmdings must demonstrate, first, that <br />there is a legitimate state interest justifying the imposition of the exaction. Second, the local <br />government must demonstrate that there is a nexus between the permit condition and a legitimate <br />state interest. I.e., the condition being imposed actually serves or furthers the valid public <br />purpose. Finally, the local government must demonstrate that the exaction and the anticipated <br />impact of the proposed development are "roughly proportionate." For instance, a local <br />government cannot require a developer of a 'duplex to construct a new three-lane highway, <br />because the condition imposed would have absolutely no relationship to the amount of traffic to <br />be generated by the proposed development. <br />In this case, Public Works staff provided Dolan findings on public interest, nexus and <br />rough proportionality justifying the dedications that the City was requiring of the applicant. 'Ihe <br />findings are. very formulaic. They identify the public interest in having a 45-foot right of way <br />dedication (PW Referral Comment at 2), the necessary nexus betweeii the required dedication <br />and the public interest (PW Referral Comment at 3, first full paragraph), and explain how the <br />dedication is roughly proportional to the anticipated impacts of the proposed development (PW <br />Referral Comment at 3, second paragraph). A similar analysis is done for the pedestrian and <br />bicycle dedication (PW Referral Comment at 4). The Hearings Official and the applicant point <br />out that the Dolan findings do not state" that the roadway will be unsafe unless it is improved <br />now; rather, they state that safe vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian and emergency access will be at <br />risk in the future without the required dedication. `The -findings point out that this is the last <br />opportunity the City will have to require the dedication needed for any biture street construction. <br />Further, the Dolan f adings. do not even attempt to justify requiring that the applicant <br />actually construct or improve the road, only that the applicant dedicate portions of its land for a <br />public right-of--way. Had the applicant been required to improve Oakleigh Lane; the City would <br />have needed to provide similar findings justifying that requirement. <br />City o1.gerie :tom L- 8th Awe • Eugene; 011:9740-t <br />5?Fl 6$ $447 54 6$2 5i4 Fax <br />, , , , . , ~ut~f-etrgetle.or Barr , , , <br />{00108854;1) <br />116 <br />