The agency has the burden of proving the existence of "rough proportionality." That is, the agency must show (1) the challenged regulation advances a legitimate state interest; (2) there is an "essential nexus" between the interest advanced and the requirement exacted, Nollan, 483 U.S. at 834; The Luxembourg Group, Inc. v. Snohomish County, 76 Wn. App. 502, 505, 887 P.2d 446, review denied, 127 Wn.2d 1005 (1995); (3) there is a roughly proportional relationship between the benefit to the public and the cost to the landowner; and (4) damages were proximately caused by the governmental action. The Court in Sintra I appeared inclined to hold the demolition fee "goes too far": "The economic impact on Sintra is enormous.

These holdings are consistent with the fundamental purpose of the Takings Clause, which is not to bar government from requiring a developer to deal with problems of the developers own making, but which is "to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.Luxembourg Group, Inc. v. Snohomish County, 76 Wn. App. 502, 505, 887 P.2d 446, review denied, 127 Wn.2d 1005 (1995); Unlimited, 50 Wn. App. at 727. We also note the Nollan Court's comment, "Had California simply required the Nollans to make an easement across their beachfront available to the public on a permanent basis in order to increase public access to the beach, rather than conditioning their permit to rebuild their house on their agreeing to do so, we have no doubt there would have been a taking."

Reconsideration denied March 1, 1995. Review denied 127 Wn.2d 1005 (1995).