Eugene Hearing Official <br />August 14, 2024 <br />Page 16 <br /> <br />discretionary permit application shall be based on standards and criteria, which <br />shall be set forth in the development ordinance and which shall relate approval or <br />denial of a discretionary permit application to the development ordinance and to <br />the comprehensive plan for the area in which the development would occur and to <br />the development ordinance and comprehensive plan for the city as a whole. <br /> (2) When an ordinance establishing approval standards is required under ORS <br />197A.200 and 197A.400 to provide only clear and objective standards, the <br />standards must be clear and objective on the face of the ordinance.” <br /> <br />Here the City has not pointed to a standard that says a nonconnecting road must be built to public <br />road standards. <br /> <br />Second, the fact that there are other nonconnecting streets in this project that do not need to be <br />built to public road standards, but the City wants this nonconnecting road built to public road <br />standards, shows that the City is using a discretionary baton to direct the design, not a clear and <br />objective baton. The statutes require clear and objective standards and conditions for housing. <br />ORS 197.307(4). That precludes the City from imposing conditions in its discretion. <br /> <br />Third, the demand for public right of way dedication and improvements is an exaction that has <br />not been and cannot be justified under the Nollan and Dolan tests. Public Works has 28 pages of <br />revised comments, which are Attachment B to the July 31 Staff Memo. The new rationale for <br />making Randy Lane as a public road begins at page 2 of the Public Works comments. PDF 195 <br />of the July 31 Staff submittal. <br /> <br />The Public Works rationale is that Randy Lane might be connected through Lot 39 in the future, <br />even if this PUD is approved with a prohibition of any development on Lot 39: At page 3 (PDF <br />196) Public Works says: <br /> <br />“Additionally, the missing segment needed to connect Randy Lane’s east and <br />west termini is not entirely located on land above 901 feet, and the portion that is <br />above 901 feet could be built; EC 9.8325(8) does not govern every scenario in <br />which the street could be completed in the future.” <br /> <br />The Public Works comments recognize that the demand for full public street improvements and <br />dedication of right of way for a public street must be justified under the constitution. It offers <br />those findings at pages 4-5 (PDF 197-198). In summary, the rationale is: <br /> <br />• A full public street is in the public interest to reduce travel time and promote alternative <br />modes of transportation, and provide a full range of public amenities. <br />• A full public street is in the public interest because it will provide a number of amenities <br />including better access to the city park, better traffic flow for residents, visitors and <br />deliveries, better access for pedestrians, better lit access, and street trees for a healthier <br />environment. <br />• There is a “nexus between the requirement to dedicate the public right-of-way * * * and <br />the public interests at issue” because absent the dedication “the public interest as