Eugene Hearing Official <br />August 14, 2024 <br />Page 17 <br /> <br />discussed above will be at risk as the proposed improvements will only serve a small <br />portion of the proposed development.” <br />• There is also a nexus between the more robust improvements demanded and the need to <br />safely accommodate vehicles and pedestrians. <br />• The dedication and improvements requested is “roughly proportional to the <br />• impact that the proposed development will have on the City’s transportation facilities” <br />based on trips associated with the 8 lots on Randy Lane at full Middle Housing <br />development – or 237 Average Daily Trips. <br /> <br />There are two elements to the constitutional inquiry that the City must conduct here – the nexus <br />test (Nollan) and the rough proportionality test (Dolan). The Court of Appeals explained these in <br />Hill v. City of Portland, 293 Or App 283, 290, 428 P3d 986 (2018). <br /> <br />The Court explained what the Nollan part of the test requires the decision maker to demonstrate. <br /> <br />“As noted, the first element of the Nollan/Dolan framework—the “nexus” <br />element—requires the city to demonstrate “(1) what interests would allow the city <br />to deny plaintiff’s partition, and (2) how the exaction would serve those interests.” <br />Brown, 251 Or. App. at 56, 283 P.3d 367. In this context, as we understand <br />Nollan, a governmental interest is one that would permit the denial of a permit <br />when it is a legitimate one—such as managing traffic congestion—and the <br />project’s impacts standing alone, or in combination with the impacts of other <br />construction, “would substantially impede” that legitimate interest. Nollan, 483 <br />U.S. at 835-36, 107 S.Ct. 3141 (assuming without deciding that the government <br />had identified legitimate governmental interests that would allow it “to deny the <br />Nollans their permit outright if their new house (alone, or by reason of the <br />cumulative impact produced in conjunction with other construction) would <br />substantially impede these purposes”). That means, necessarily, that, to determine <br />whether a government has established an interest that would permit the denial of a <br />permit, the government must demonstrate how the proposed project’s impacts, <br />either alone or in combination with other construction, are ones that “substantially <br />impede” the interest identified by the government.” 293 Or App at 289-91. <br /> <br />Thus, there are two parts to the nexus inquiry. What interests would allow the city to deny the <br />application, and how would the exaction serve those interests? The city’s request does not get <br />past the first part of that inquiry. The City may not deny this application because this is filed <br />under clear and objective standards; conditions are allowed only to ensure compliance with the <br />clear and objective standards. The City is not arguing that it may deny this application under any <br />of the applicable standards; it is arguing that it has discretion to impose the exaction to meet <br />public interest needs. In contrast, if this application were filed under the General track standards, <br />the City likely could make the showing to get past the first part of the nexus test. <br /> <br />4. Whether this site is an area “included on the city’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory” in <br />the meaning of EC 9.8325(3) and is, therefore, exempt from the Tree Preservation and <br />Removal Standards in EC9.6885? The answer is YES. It is on the Water Resources Goal 5