Appeal Materials 2024-09-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Eugene Planning Commission September 17, 2024 Page 8 remonstrance to future public demands for improvements) on the Randy Lane stub is not justified. As the Court of Appeals explained in Hill v. City of Portland, 293 Or App 283, 290, 428 P3d 986 (2018), proving “the “nexus” element—requires the city to demonstrate “(1) what interests would allow the city to deny plaintiff’s partition, and (2) how the exaction would serve those interests.” Brown, 251 Or App at 56, 283 P3d 367.” Once the Applicant has justified the exception, there is no road standard that must be complied with. Hence, there would be no basis for denying the application due to the road proposal. As a result, there is no nexus that would support the exaction. Public Works makes a case for the dedication based on the many public interests that would be promoted by a public road. However, public interest benefits of any magnitude do not justify an exaction. (7) Geological and Geotechnical Analysis, EC 9.6710(6). The HO erred in requiring compliance with the requirement for a geotechnical “certification” required at EC 9.6710(6) due to the applicant’s failure to carry its burden of proof that the site is on an acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. Decision at 35 para 3. If it is not on the inventory then a certification is needed. This is the same theory, and the same error, that the HO made with respect to the applicability of the tree preservation standards. The same reasoning applies here. The City has the burden to show that it is clear what constitutes its Goal 5 inventory for Scenic Sites. The City has not carried that burden; indeed, the HO has found that the location of the inventory is ambiguous. Therefore, the requirement in EC 9.6710(6) may not be applied in this decision. In the event the City finds that the Scenic Sites inventory is clear, or that the subject property is otherwise not on the inventory, then the applicant will request an opportunity to provide the geotechnical certification in an ORS 197.522 proceeding. (8) Stormwater, EC 9.6791-9.6797. Based on the evidence provided by the Revised Public Works Referral Comments dated July 30, 2024, pages 21-25, as incorporated by the HO, the HO should have found that the proposed stormwater system can comply with the city standards for stormwater, even if the system must be adjusted in the event Randy Lane must be a public road. Because the finding can be made that the system design can be adjusted to accommodate the increment of stormwater from the public road, the Commission may condition the approval. Decision at 40 para 2. (9) Development prohibition above 901-foot elevation, EC 9.8325(8)(a). The Decision at 41-44 agreed with staff that the 901-foot prohibition does not conflict with the Middle Housing Statute, which applies directly. The standard in EC 98325(8)(a) is: