InDolan v. City of Tigard(1994), the Supreme Court ruled that exactions (e.g., requiring land dedication for a bike path as a condition of development approval) must have a “rough proportionality” between the government’s demand and the development’s impact, building on the “nexus” test fromNollan v. California Coastal Commission(1987). Option A (rough proportionality) is correct. The APA’sAICP Certification Exam Content Outline(2022), under“Fundamental Planning Knowledge,” states, “Dolan v. City of Tigardestablished the ‘rough proportionality’ test for exactions, ensuring they are proportional to the development’s impact.” Option B (cannot use public domain) is incorrect, as the case focused on exactions, not public domain. Option C (state-approved comprehensive plan) is unrelated. Option D (allowable use cannot be denied) misrepresents the ruling, which dealt with conditions, not outright denial. TheCPC Study Manual(2024) confirms, “Dolanintroduced the rough proportionality requirement for exactions,” supporting option A.