10/03/1994 Park Board Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

5EP-29-1994 08:46 NAC 612 595 9837 P.06i08 E. The commission required that she dedicate the portion of her property lying within the 100-year flood plain for improvement of a storm drainage system along Fanno Creek and that she dedicate an additional IS-foot strip of land adjacent to the flood plain as a pedestrian/bicycle pathway. The dedication required by that condition encompasses approximately 7, 000 square feet or roughly 10 per cent of the property. F. In a five to four decision, the Supreme Court held that the city' s dedication requirements constitute an uncompensated taking of property. Under the well settled doctrine of' "unconstitutional conditions" the government may not require a person to give up a constitutional right in exchange for a discretionary benefit conferred by the government where the property sought has little or no relationship to the benefit. In evaluating Dolan's claim, it must be determined whether an "essential nexus" exists between a legitimate state interest and the permit condition. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, supra. If one does, then it must be decided whether the degree of the exactions demanded by the permit conditions bears the required relationship to the projected impact of the proposed development. G. preventing flooding along Fanno Creek and reducing traffic congestion in the district are legitimate public purposes; and a nexus exists between the first purpose and limiting development within the creek' s floodplain and between the second purpose and providing for alternative means of transportation. Deciding the second question - whether the city' s findings are constitutionally sufficient to justify the conditions imposed on Dolan's permit - the necessary connection required by the Fifth Amendment is "rough proportionality. " No precise mathematical calculation is required, but the city must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the proposed development ' s impact. This is essentially the "reasonable relationship" test adopted by the majority of the state courts. The findings upon which the city relies do not show the required reasonable relationship between the flood plain easement and Dolan's proposed building. The CDC already required that Dolan leave 15 per cent of her property as open space, and the 3 .