BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THURSTON COUNTY

BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THURSTON COUNTY In the Matter of the Application of ) No. AAPL/PLAT 020721 ) Glenmore Ridge Patti Ingersoll, West Bay Construction ) ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS For Approval of a Preliminary Plat and ) AND DECISION Appeal of an MDNS ) ) SUMMARY OF DECISION The request for approval of a preliminary plat to subdivide 4.68 acres of land into 20 singlefamily residential lots is GRANTED, subject to conditions. The appeal of the March 13, 2003 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance is DENIED. Request SUMMARY OF RECORD Patti Ingersoll of West Bay Construction (Applicant) requested approval of a preliminary plat to subdivide 4.68 acres of land into 20 single-family residential lots. The subject property is located on the west side of Rich Road at the 5600 block and is identified as Assessor Parcel Number 09570038000. Thurston County conducted environmental review of the proposal pursuant to its authority under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). After review of an environmental checklist and other information on file with the County, the County determined that, with mitigation, the proposal would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. The County issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) on March 13. 2003. The MDNS became final after a 14-day comment period ending on March 27, 2003. The appeal period ended on April 3, 2003.

The Applicant submitted comments on the MDNS on March 26, 2003 and filed an appeal of the MDNS on April 2, 2003. The Applicant requested a reduction in the City of Olympia and County traffic mitigation fees required by MDNS Condition Nos. 2 and 3 and the elimination of the City of Olympia park mitigation fee required by MDNS Condition No. 7. The Applicant subsequently withdrew the portion of the appeal relating to the County traffic mitigation fee (MDNS Condition No. 2). The Applicant s argument with respect to the two appeal issues is set forth in the March 25, 2003 MDNS comment letter and a July 17, 2003 letter (brief) to the Hearings Examiner. Thurston County s and the City of Olympia s argument with respect to the two appeal issues is set forth in a joint brief filed on July 17, 2003. On July 21, 2003 the City of Olympia filed a Motion to Strike four issues from the Applicant s brief. The Hearings Examiner denied the motion. Hearing Date A consolidated open record hearing on the preliminary plat application and the SEPA appeal was held before the Hearing Examiner of Thurston County on July 21, 2003. Testimony During the appeal portion of the consolidated open record hearing the following individuals presented testimony under oath: Robert Smith, Thurston County Development Services Department Arthur Saint, Thurston County Roads and Transportation Services Jeff Fancher, Thurston County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Sandy Mackie, Applicant/Appellant Rep. John Vanek, Attorney, City of Olympia Dave Okerlund, City of Olympia David Hanna, City of Olympia Dave Smith, City of Olympia Patti Ingersoll, Applicant/Appellant Jim Zahn Legal Counsel At the consolidated open record hearing Attorney Alexander Mackie represented the Applicant/Appellant West Bay Construction and Attorney John Vanek represented the City of Olympia. Exhibits At the consolidated open record hearing, the following exhibits were admitted as part of the official record: Glenmore Ridge, No. AAPL/PLAT 020721 Page 2

EXHIBIT 1 Development Services Planning & Environmental Section Report with the following Attachments: Attachment a Notice of Public Hearing dated August 20, 2002 Attachment b Zoning/Site Map, undated Attachment c Preliminary Plat Map dated October 9, 2002 Attachment d Preliminary Plat Application received November 20, 2002 Attachment e Glenmore Ridge Project Summary, undated Attachment f Tree Planting Plan dated April 30, 2003 Attachment g Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance issued March 13, 2003 Attachment h Attachment i Conditional Preliminary Approval Memorandum from Arthur Saint, Roads & Transportation Services Department dated April 17, 2003 Preliminary Approval Letter from Gary Duvall, Thurston County Public Health and Social Services Department dated October 15, 2002 EXHIBIT 1a Development Services Planning & Environmental Section Report for AAPL 020721, including the following attachments: Attachment a Attachment b Attachment c Legal Notice Zoning/Site Map Glenmore Ridge Project Summary Attachment d Preliminary Plat Map, revised October 9, 2002 Attachment e Appeal of Administrative Decision dated April 2, 2003 Attachment f Mitigated Determination of NonSignificance issued March 13, 2003 Attachment g Environmental Checklist, SEPA 020721 Attachment h Memorandum to Robert Smith from Arthur Saint, Roads and Transportation Services, dated March 7, 2003 Glenmore Ridge, No. AAPL/PLAT 020721 Page 3

Attachment i Attachment j Attachment k Memorandum to Robert Smith from Scott Davis and Arthur Saint, Roads and Transportation Services, dated July 8, 2003 February 20, 2003 Letter from David F. Okerland, Olympia Parks, Art and Recreation Department to Tom Hill, Olympia Community Planning and Development Department, Regarding Glenmore Ridge Mitigation Fee Determination March 31, 2003 Letter from David F. Okerland, Olympia Parks, Art and Recreation Department to Robert Smith, Regarding Glenmore Ridge Amended SEPA Mitigation Fee Determination EXHIBIT 2 Enlarged Preliminary Plat Map, dated September 4, 2002 EXHIBIT 3 Letter from Robert H. Wolpert, Olympia School District, dated July 14, 2003 EXHIBIT 4 Letter and Witness List from Alexander Mackie, dated July 17, 2003, including the following Exhibits: EXHIBIT 4a Letter from James P. Schweickert from Robert Smith, dated December 4, 2002 EXHIBIT 4b Memorandum from Perry Shea to Patti Ingersoll, dated March 18, 2003 EXHIBIT 4c EXHIBIT 4c1 EXHIBIT 4c2 EXHIBIT 4c3 EXHIBIT 4c4 EXHIBIT 4c5 Declaration of Doreen Milward in Support of July 17, 2003 letter from Alexander W. Mackie to Jim Driscoll, Hearings Examiner, Thurston County Development Services, dated July 17, 2003 Letter from Doreen Milward to A. Mackie, re: WestBay Construction Glenmore Ridge, dated July 17, 2003 Summary Chart of Existing and Future Park Benefits within Olympia SE Subarea and Vicinity for Glenmore Ridge, dated July 17, 2003 Chapter Seven: Parks and Open Space Volume Three: Capital Facilities Plan City of Olympia Comprehensive Maps: Map 4-1 dated December 16, 1997, Map 7-1 dated December 16, 1998, Map 2-5 dated December 16, 1998, Map 2-5 undated, Facilities Plan Map, dated 2002 Glenmore Ridge, No. AAPL/PLAT 020721 Page 4

EXHIBIT 4c6 Olympia Parks, Arts & Recreation Plan, dated November 4, 2002, Pages 6-1 through 6-63, Implementation Section Table 9.1 EXHIBIT 4c7 Recreation Survey Results, City of Olympia, dated June 12, 2000, pages 2, 3, 9-13 EXHBIIT 4c8 Location of City of Tumwater Parks web page www.ci.tumwater.wa.us/departments/parks/parksinv.htm EXHIBIT 4c9 Copy of brochure titled: A Guide to Your Lacey Parks and Other Facilities EXHIBIT 5 Joint City-County Brief from John Vanek and Jeff Fancher and City of Olympia Witness List from John Vanek dated July 17, 2003, including the following Exhibits: EXHIBIT 5a EXHIBIT 5b Letter with attachments from Alexander Mackie to Robert Smith, dated March 25, 2003 SEPA/PLAT-02072 Mitigated Determination of NonSignificance, dated March 13, 2003 EXHIBIT 5c City of Olympia Transportation Plan, pages 12 14, dated July 3, 2002 EXHIBIT 5d EXHIBIT 5e Thurston County Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Section, pages 5-28 and 5-29 Map containing the City of Olympia, undated and untitled EXHIBIT 5f City of Olympia Ordinance No. 6246, dated December 17, 2002 EXHIBIT 5g EXHIBIT 5h EXHIBIT 5i City of Olympia Transportation Section of the 2003 2008 Capital Facilities Plan City of Olympia Parks, Open Space, Urban Trails and Recreation Facilities Section of the 2003 2008 Capital Facilities Plan City of Olympia Transportation Mitigation Costs for Development in Olympia UGA, dated July 9, 2003 EXHIBIT 5j Letter from David F. Okerlund to Robert Smith, dated March 31, 2003 EXHIBIT 5k Letter including attachment from David F. Okerlund to Tom Hill, dated February 20, 2003 EXHIBIT 5l Lacey Comprehensive Plan for Outdoor Recreation, January 1997 Glenmore Ridge, No. AAPL/PLAT 020721 Page 5

EXHIBIT 5m EXHIBIT 5n Exhibit does not exist Exhibit does not exist EXHIBIT 5o Parks, Arts & Recreation Plan Table 6.2 EXHIBIT 5p Table 9.1 Parks, Arts & Recreation Plan Implementation Schedule 2003 2025 EXHIBIT 5q Parks, Open Space, Urban Trails and Recreation Facilities 2002 2007 CFP Levels of Service EXHIBIT 5r Parks, Open Space, Urban Trails and Recreation Facilities 2002 2008 CFP Levels of Service EXHIBIT 5s EXHIBIT 5t Table VII-3: Parks and Open Space Standards and Definitions Year 2000 Level of Service Standards Parks, Arts and Recreation Services Department Summary from 2003 Adopted Operating Budget EXHIBIT 6 Ordinance No. 6157 EXHIBIT 7 EXHIBIT 8 EXHIBIT 9 Transportation Section of the City of Olympia Comprehensive Plan Flip Chart Time Line for Traffic CFP Adoption, submitted by John Vanek, City of Olympia Record of PLAT 020081 Hearing Examiner Hearing on June 2, 2003, and the Exhibits entered into the record at that hearing which include the following: EXHIBIT 9.1 Applicant s pre-hearing brief, dated May 27, 2003, submitted by Alexander Mackie EXHIBIT 9.2 Appellant s pre-hearing brief, dated, submitted by John Vanek EXHIBIT 9.3 EXHIBIT 9.4 EXHIBIT 9.5 EXHIBIT 9.6 A Recommended Classification System for Local and Regional Recreation Open Space, Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines, by Roger A. Lancaster, submitted by John Vanek, City of Olympia, undated City of Olympia 2001-2006 Capital Facilities Plan Black and White Map of City of Olympia City of Olympia Facilities Plan Map 7.1, color Glenmore Ridge, No. AAPL/PLAT 020721 Page 6

EXHIBIT 9.7 EXHIBIT 9.8 EXHIBIT 9.9 Charts by Alexander Mackie, outlining proposed Parks Mitigation Fees Basis for Olympia s Park Mitigation Fees, by John Vanek June 2, 2003 Thurston County Hearing Examiner Hearing Tape of PLAT 020081, Boulevard Heights, limited to testimony and cross examination of David Hanna and Dave Okerlund EXHIBIT 10 Facilities Plan Map 2002 City of Olympia Parks, Arts & Recreation Plan EXHIBIT 11 Transportation & Parks Mitigation Fees EXHIBIT 12a e Flip Chart, submitted by John Vanek, City of Olympia, with the following pages: EXHIBIT 12a EXHIBIT 12b EXHIBIT 12c EXHIBIT 12d EXHIBIT 12e Specific Adverse Environmental Impacts Based Upon County Sepa Policies Goal & Actual LOSs Implementation Schedule for Park Facilities Fee Tracking & Expenditure EXHIBIT 13 July 24, 2003 letter from Candace Cramer to Jim Driscoll, Hearing Examiner Based upon the record developed at the consolidated open record hearing, the Hearing Examiner enters the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the preliminary plat application and SEPA appeal: FINDINGS OF FACT Findings on Preliminary Plat 1. The Applicant requested approval of a preliminary plat to subdivide 4.68 acres of land into 20 single-family residential lots. The subject property is located on the west side of Rich Road at the 5600 block and is identified as Assessor Parcel Number 09570038000. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 1; Exhibit 1, Attachments c & d. 2. The subject property is located within the Olympia Urban Growth Area (UGA) of Thurston County and is zoned Residential Four to Eight Units Per Acre (R 4-8). Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2; Exhibit 1, Attachment b. Glenmore Ridge, No. AAPL/PLAT 020721 Page 7

3. The minimum housing density in the R 4-8 zone is four dwelling units per acre, and the maximum housing density is eight dwelling units per acre. However, in order to develop at a density of four to 4.99 dwelling units per acre or 7.01 to eight dwelling units per acre, development rights must be obtained from an eligible property owner in a Thurston County transfer of development rights sending zone. If such development rights are not obtained, the minimum housing density is five dwelling units per acre and the maximum housing density is seven dwelling units per acre. TCC 23.04.080. The density of the proposed development is 5.36 dwelling units per acre. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 3. 4. Lot standards applicable to development within the R 4-8 zone include a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 50 feet for conventional, detached single-family residences (there are alternate standards for cottages and townhouses). Pursuant to TCC 23.04.080(7)(b), the lot widths must be varied so that no more than three consecutive lots have the same width. The difference in width must be at least six feet. TCC 23.04.080, Table 4.04. Each of the proposed lots would be at least 5,000 square feet in area and have widths ranging from 50 to 72 feet. No more than three consecutive lots would have the same width. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 3; Exhibit 1, Attachment c. 5. Access to lots within the plat would be from an extension of 56 th Court SE west from Rich Road. The new segment of 56 th Court SE would follow the northern property line approximately 650 feet before curving north and turning into Haig Drive SE, an existing right-of-way. The Haig Drive SE right-of-way is immediately north of the subject property, bordering the western portion of the northern property line for approximately 400 feet before terminating at an unplatted parcel. Consequently, the access to the plat would be partially within the existing Haig Drive SE right-of-way and partially within the subject property. The access road would establish a through-street connection between Glenmore Drive SE and Rich Road. Exhibit 1, Attachment c. 6. The new road segment would be constructed to City of Olympia Neighborhood Collector Street standards, including a 55-foot wide right-of-way, two ten-foot wide driving lanes, one seven-foot wide parking lane, two eight-foot wide planting strips, and two five-foot wide sidewalks. The sidewalk on the north side of 56 th Court SE would extend from Rich Road to the point that the road turns into Haig Drive SE. The sidewalk on the south side of the road would extend the entire road length. Exhibit 1, Attachment c. 7. The Applicant proposes a small tract (Tract E) designated Reserved for Future Access to unplatted property to the north. Tract E is north of the proposed roadway in the northeast portion of the property. The future road connection is proposed by the Applicant but is not required by the County. 1 Exhibit 1, Attachment c; Argument of Mr. Mackie. 8. Storm runoff from the site would be collected from the roadways, treated in a wet pond and released into retention/detention ponds. The treatment and retention/detention 1 See Luxembourg v. Snohomish County, 76 Wn. App. 502 (1995). Glenmore Ridge, No. AAPL/PLAT 020721 Page 8

facilities would be located in Tracts A, B, and C. Tract A, 21,993 square feet in area, is located in the southwest corner of the property. Tract B, 3,975 square feet in area, is located in the southeast corner of the property and is designated for Future Storm Facilities. Tract C, 5,072 square feet in area, is located in the northeast corner of the property. Although stormwater from the plat would likely be fully accommodated within Tracts A and C, the Applicant proposes Tract B as an additional stormwater tract because the area is unsuitable for an additional lot. Tract B would be used for stormwater detention if necessary. No other development is proposed for the tract. Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 3; Exhibit 1, Attachment c; Testimony of Ms. Ingersoll. 9. The County Roads & Transportation Services Department reviewed the proposed access and storm drainage system and determined that the preliminary requirements set forth in Thurston County Road Standards and the Drainage Design and Erosion Control Manual have been satisfied. The Department recommended preliminary approval of the plat provided that the final design of the roadway and stormwater management system, the proposed utility work and site grading comply with applicable standards; that permanent survey controls be established; that the final plat map contain specific notes relating to stormwater management and access; and that Thurston County and City of Olympia traffic mitigation fees be paid. These conditions have been incorporated into the MDNS issued for the proposal and/or the County s recommended conditions of preliminary plat approval. Exhibit 1, Attachments g & h; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, pages 5-6. 10. City of Olympia water and sewer would be provided to each of the lots. The County Environmental Health Department reviewed the proposal and recommended approval provided that the Applicant provide written confirmation that the sewer and water facilities have received final construction approval from the City of Olympia and ensure that a copy of the Integrated Pest Management Plan is distributed to each lot owner. These conditions have been incorporated into the County s recommended conditions of preliminary plat approval. Exhibit 1, Attachment i, Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 6. 11. The subject property is located within the Olympia School District and would be served by Centennial Elementary School, Washington Middle School and Olympia High School. These schools are currently over capacity. The MDNS issued for the proposal requires the Applicant to negotiate school mitigation with the District and submit evidence of an agreement prior to final plat approval. Exhibit 1, Attachment g; Exhibit 3. 12. There is no open space requirement applicable to this proposal. TCC 23.04.080, Table 4.04. 13. The Forest Lands Conversion Ordinance (TCC 17.25) requires a Tree Preservation and New Tree Planting Plan for all residential subdivisions within the Olympia UGA. The Forest Lands Conversion Ordinance requirements applicable to the proposal include designating a minimum of 5% of the site for tree retention or planting, and retaining or planting trees on individual lots at a rate of one tree per 4,000 square feet of lot area. TCC 17.25.400. The Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) issued for the proposal includes conditions addressing these requirements. The subject property has no Glenmore Ridge, No. AAPL/PLAT 020721 Page 9

existing trees. The Applicant has submitted a Tree Planting Plan (Exhibit 1, Attachment f) in which it proposes to plant trees within a designated tree tract along the southern property line (Tract D), along 56 th Court SE, along the rear property lines of the lots, and around the perimeter of the storm drainage facilities. Exhibit 1, Attachments f & g. 14. Notice of the open record hearing was mailed to adjacent property owners on July 8, 2003; published in The Olympian on July 11, 2003; and posted on the subject property on July 9, 2003. Exhibit 1, Attachment a; Exhibit 1, Staff Report, page 2. General Findings Related to SEPA Appeal 15. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Thurston County acted as lead agency for review of environmental impacts caused by the proposal. The County determined that with mitigation, the proposal would not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment and issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) on March 13, 2003. The MDNS contains seven conditions addressing school, traffic and parks mitigation, storm drainage, and forestry/tree preservation. The MDNS became final after a 14-day comment period ending on March 27, 2003. The appeal period ended on April 3, 2003. Exhibit 1, Attachment g. 16. The Applicant submitted comments on the MDNS on March 26, 2003 and filed an appeal of the MDNS on April 2, 2003. The Applicant requested a reduction in the County and City of Olympia traffic mitigation fees required by MDNS Condition Nos. 2 and 3 and the elimination of the City of Olympia park mitigation fee required by MDNS Condition No. 7. Exhibit 1A, Attachment e. The Applicant subsequently withdrew the portion of the appeal relating to the County traffic mitigation fee (MDNS Condition No. 2). Exhibit 1A, Staff Report, page 1. The remaining appeal issues relate to the following two conditions: 3. The City of Olympia, Public Works Department (City) has submitted a traffic analysis for this proposed development. The new development will impact proposed projects the City has in the Capitol Facilities Plan. The Glenmore Ridge development (20-lot plat) will require payment of Traffic Mitigation fees of $26,879.00. The mitigation fees shall be paid to the City of Olympia prior to final plat or per agreement with the City. 7. The City of Olympia Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department has submitted analysis that this proposed project will reduce the level of service and thus impact existing parks, recreation, and open space facilities within the City of Olympia. The City s request was reviewed by the County s Development Services Department Staff which determined that to mitigate the impact the applicant shall pay a total mitigation fee of $1,926.86 per single family residential lot (20 lots) for a total cost of $38,537.20. The mitigation fees shall be paid to the City of Olympia at time of utility permits for each lot. Exhibit 1, Attachment g. Glenmore Ridge, No. AAPL/PLAT 020721 Page 10

Findings Related to SEPA Condition No. 3 17. The City of Olympia traffic analysis that formed the basis of Condition No. 3 of the MDNS is a worksheet entitled Transportation Mitigation Costs for Development in Olympia UGA (2001 to 2007). According to the analysis, the development s 20 PM peak hour trips would affect seven projects identified in the City s Capital Facilities Plan including Fones Road Widening (2 PM peak hour trips); 18 th Avenue/Fones Road Widening (2 PM peak hour trips); Boulevard Road & 22 nd Avenue (3 PM peak hour trips); Boulevard Road & Log Cabin Signal (6 PM peak hour trips); Boulevard Road & Morse-Merryman Road (3 PM peak hour trips); Log Cabin Road Connection (2 PM peak hour trips); and Yelm Highway Widening (8 PM peak hour trips). The City calculated the development s proportionate share of the costs of these capital projects to be $26,879.00. Exhibit 1A, Attachment h. 18. According to the Applicant s July 17, 2003 brief to the Hearings Examiner, the sole question with the City of Olympia traffic assessment is the capital facility plan used to assess costs to the Glenmore Ridge project. Exhibit 4. The preliminary plat application was deemed complete on December 4, 2002 and is therefore vested as of that date. Exhibit 4, with attached December 4, 2002 letter from Thurston County. The Applicant submitted that the costs were based on a capital facilities plan (CFP) that was not adopted until December 10, 2002, and that a traffic analysis of the Glenmore Ridge project under the applicable CFP (2000 2006) would result in a lesser mitigation amount. Argument of Mr. Mackie; Exhibit 4A. The Applicant submitted a memorandum dated March 18, 2003 from traffic engineer Perry Shea that indicated that only two of the projects identified in the City s traffic analysis were on the 2000-2006 CFP. Exhibit 4A. 19. The roads projects identified in the City s traffic assessment (Exhibit 5i) were included in the City s 2002-2007 CFP, which the City adopted on December 18, 2001 through Ordinance No. 6157 (Exhibits 6 and 7). The ordinance became effective on January 2, 2002, prior to the vesting date of the plat. Although City staff referred to the project list contained in the 2003-2008 CFP (Exhibit 5g) when preparing the traffic assessment, the 2003-2008 project list is identical to the 2002-2007 project list. 2 Exhibits 5g, 5i, 6, 7 & 8; Testimony of Mr. David Smith. 20. Based on the testimony and evidence regarding the 2002-2007 CFP, the Applicant withdrew the portion of the appeal relating to City of Olympia traffic mitigation. Exhibit 13, Letter from Candace Cramer of The Shea Group dated July 24, 2003 2 Although not specifically discussed at the hearing, it should be noted that the project costs contained within the 2002-2007 and 2003-2008 CFPs differ, and it appears that the City relied on the numbers contained in the 2003-2008 CFP. For example, in the traffic assessment, the City stated a cost assigned to growth (i.e. portion of cost obtained from mitigation fees) of $1,988,504 for the Fones Road Widening project and $550,152 for the 18 th Avenue/Fones Road Widening project. The total for the two projects, $2,538,656, corresponds to the impact fee amount stated in the 2003-2008 CFP (see Exhibit 5g, page 23). The 2002-2007 CFP specifies an impact fee amount of $3,427,200 for these same projects. In comparing the project costs set forth in the 2003-2008 and 2002-2007 CFPs for the remaining projects, in all cases the 2003-2008 CFP assigns a lower impact fee amount than the 2002-2007 CFP. The only exception is the Log Cabin Road Connection project, which has had a constant project cost between the CFPs. Exhibits 5g; 5i and 7. Glenmore Ridge, No. AAPL/PLAT 020721 Page 11

Findings Related to SEPA Condition No. 7 21. During the County s SEPA review of the proposed plat, the City submitted a February 20, 2003 letter from the City of Olympia Parks Department (Exhibit 1a, Attachment j) requesting a park mitigation fee of $1,926.86 for each single-family residence. The stated purposes of the fee were to mitigate the probable significant adverse impact of increasing demands upon the existing and future parks, recreation, and open space facilities of the municipal area created by the this project and to avoid overburdening existing public facilities and in maintaining the existing level of service. Exhibit 1a, Attachment j. 22. The analysis supporting the requested parks fee was based on Level of Service (LOS) data contained in the Parks, Open Space, Urban Trails and Recreation Facilities element of the City of Olympia 2003 2008 Capital Facilities Plan (CFP), which was adopted after the vesting date of the plat. The City subsequently submitted a revised analysis (Exhibit 1, Attachment k) that was based on LOS data contained in the 2002-2007 CFP. The revised mitigation amount was $1,921.01 per single-family residence. The difference in LOS data between the two CFPs relate to the current LOS of the various City parks facilities. It is the current LOS, not the adopted LOS standard (i.e. goal), that forms the basis for the parks mitigation under the City s formula. The LOS standard for the various parks facilities did not change between the 2002-2007 CFP and the 2003-2008. The LOS standard per 1,000 population for the various amenities is 0.93 acre for neighborhood parks; 2.22 acres for community parks; 13.4 acres for open space; 0.166 mile for trails; 0.20 court for sport courts; and 0.26 field for ball fields. Based on the current LOS data contained in the 2002-2007 CFP, the actual LOS exceeded the LOS standard for community parks, but did not meet the LOS standard for neighborhood parks, open space, ball fields, sport courts or trails. The figures for current LOS included both the City population and the Olympia Urban Growth Area population. However, the City s analysis of the development s impacts on neighborhood parks was based on the current LOS for the south subarea to ensure a direct linkage and rough proportionality between each development and the associated need for specific new facilities (Exhibit 1a, Attachment k, page 9). Exhibit 1a, Attachments j and k; Exhibits 5Q and 5R. 23. The $1,921.01 per single-family unit fee was calculated by establishing a per-person fee ($738.85) and multiplying that fee by 2.6, the average occupancy of single-family detached residences in the local area per Thurston Regional Planning Council data. Exhibit 1a, Attachment k. 24. The $738.85 per person fee included $114.70 for neighborhood parks. The neighborhood parks figure is based on land acquisition costs of $55,000 per acre of park and development costs of $100,000 per acre of park. The City calculated the fee by multiplying the park acquisition and development costs of $155,000 by 0.00074 acre of park per person to maintain the existing neighborhood parks level of service for the south sub-area. According to the City, 0.00074 acre of park per person is needed for the plat to maintain the neighborhood parks level of service (1/1000 of existing south sub-area LOS of 0.74 acre per 1,000 population). Exhibit 1a, Attachment j. Glenmore Ridge, No. AAPL/PLAT 020721 Page 12

25. The $738.85 per person fee included $110 for athletic fields. The dollar amount is based on total land acquisition and development costs of $500,000 per field. The City calculated the athletic field fee by multiplying $500,000 by 0.00022 field per person to maintain the existing athletic fields level of service. The existing athletic fields level of service, as identified in the 2002-2007 CFP, is 0.22 field per 1,000 population and is deficient according to the adopted level of service standard by 0.04 field per 1,000 population. Exhibit 1a, Attachment j; Exhibit 5Q. 26. The $738.85 per person fee included $11.70 per person for sports courts. The dollar amount is based on total costs of $65,000 per court. The City calculated the fee by multiplying $65,000 by 0.00018 court per person to maintain the existing sport court level of service. The existing sport court level of the service, as identified in the 2002-2007 CFP, is 0.18 court per 1,000 population and is deficient according to the adopted level of service standard by 0.02 court per 1,000 population. Exhibit 1a, Attachment j; Exhibit 5Q. 27. The $738.85 per person fee included $27.45 per person for urban trails. The dollar amount is based on a land acquisition cost of $180,000 per mile and a development cost of $270,000 per mile. The City calculated the fee by multiplying $450,000 by 0.000061 mile per person to maintain the existing trails level of service. The existing trails level of service, as identified in the 2002-2007 CFP, is 0.061 mile per 1,000 population and is deficient according to the adopted level of service standard by 0.105 mile per 1,000 population. Exhibit 1, Attachment k; Exhibit 5Q. 28. The $738.85 per person fee included $475 per person for open space. The dollar amount is based on land acquisition and improvement costs of $38,000 per acre. The City calculated the fee by multiplying $38,000 by 0.0125 acre per person to maintain the existing open space level of service. The existing open space level of service, as identified in the 2002-2007 CFP, is 12.5 acres per 1,000 population and is deficient according to the adopted level of service standard by 0.9 acre per 1,000 population. Exhibit 1, Attachment j; Exhibit 5Q. 29. As its authority to assess fees, the City cited numerous Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, including Goal POS 10 of the Comprehensive Plan for Olympia and Olympia Growth Area, which is to provide parks and recreation facilities to meet level of service standards, and POS 10.1, which is through the Capital Facilities Plan, support neighborhood parks and urban trails which are basic to preserving and enhancing the quality of neighborhoods in Olympia and its growth area. Other applicable goals include Goal CFP1, which is to annually develop a six-year Capital Facilities Plan to implement the Comprehensive Plan by coordinating urban services, land use decisions, level of service standards, and financial resources with a fully-funded schedule of capital improvements, and Goal CFP2, to meet current needs for capital facilities in Olympia and its Growth Area, correct deficiencies in existing systems, and replace obsolete facilities. All of the above-quoted goals and policies have been adopted by Thurston County as part of the joint plan with Olympia for the unincorporated part of the Olympia Growth Area. Exhibit 1, Attachment j; Comprehensive Plan for Olympia and the Glenmore Ridge, No. AAPL/PLAT 020721 Page 13

Olympia Growth Area (notes on the first page of each chapter indicate that those goals and policies marked with an asterisk has been adopted by the County). 30. The current LOS data does not include park amenities in neighboring jurisdictions within Thurston County. However, recognizing that residents might use the amenities of neighboring jurisdictions, the City of Olympia has given mitigation fee credit to developments that are near the amenities of neighboring jurisdictions. There is no written standard for determining when credit should be given; whether credit should be given is determined on a case by case basis. Open space and neighborhood park credit was given for a plat (Cheri Estates) that is within a half-mile radius of City of Tumwater Pioneer Park, but not given to another plat (Boulevard Heights) that is approximately one and a half miles from Pioneer park. The City did not give any credit to the proposed Glenmore Ridge plat for any park facilities of neighboring jurisdictions. Testimony of Mr. Okerlund; Testimony of Mr. Hannah; Exhibit 5e; Exhibit 9.5; Exhibit 9.2(9); Exhibit 9.1(5). 31. Prior to giving credit for parks facilities in a neighboring jurisdiction, the City notifies the jurisdiction to ascertain whether there is available capacity in the parks facilities. Testimony of Mr. Hannah. In the case of Cheri Estates, even though City of Tumwater Pioneer Park contains soccer and softball fields, no credit was given for the Athletic Fields portion of the parks mitigation fee because the fields were over capacity. Exhibit 9.1(2). 32. The mitigation fees requested of the City of Olympia are not directly linked to any particular capital facilities projects identified in the Capital Facilities Plan. Instead, they are based on expected costs of providing sufficient facilities to maintain the current levelof-service. However, in the City s letter describing the fees, Mr. Okerlund states that to ensure that such fees would be used to mitigate project impacts, they would be expended within six years of collection and within the general area of the Glenmore Ridge project. Exhibit 1, Attachment j. 33. In its amended park mitigation assessment, the City provided a parks implementation schedule for the years 2003-2005. The schedule is based on Table 9.1 of the 2002 Olympia Parks, Arts and Recreation Plan (2002 Parks Plan). The 2002 Parks Plan has been adopted by the City but is still pending before the County Board of Commissioners as a Comprehensive Plan amendment. The reason the City relied on the 2002 Parks Plan for the implementation schedule is that it projects farther into the future than the CFP, which only projects six years into the future. However, the City relied on the adopted CFP for LOS data and the analysis of parks impacts. The implementation schedule includes facilities that range from 0.9 mile to 3.8 miles from the subject property (the south sub-area of the City of Olympia and adjacent UGA). Exhibit 1a, Attachment k; see also maps in Exhibit 4(c)(5) and 5(e); Testimony of Mr. Okerlund; Testimony of Mr. Hannah. 34. With respect to Neighborhood Parks, the implementation schedule includes the Marie s Vineyard interim playfield, the Marie s Vineyard neighborhood park, the Yelm Highway Glenmore Ridge, No. AAPL/PLAT 020721 Page 14

neighborhood park, and the Centennial neighborhood park. According to the schedule, land acquisition for Marie s Vineyard has been completed and construction of the interim playfield is scheduled for 2004, and construction of the neighborhood park is scheduled for 2008. Land acquisition of the Yelm Highway neighborhood park is scheduled for 2006, and construction is scheduled for 2025. Land acquisition for the Centennial neighborhood park is scheduled for 2005, and construction is scheduled for 2024. The Marie s Vineyard neighborhood park would include Sports Courts. Exhibit 1a, Attachment k; Exhibit 12d. 35. With respect to Open Space, the implementation schedule includes the Chambers Lake parcel, which is scheduled for land acquisition in 2003. Exhibit 1a, Attachment k; Exhibit 12d. 36. With respect to Urban Trails, the implementation schedule includes the Olympia Woodland Trail, which is scheduled for construction in 2003 (the land has been acquired). Exhibit 1a, Attachment k; Exhibit 12d. 37. With respect to Athletic Fields, the implementation schedule includes the Yelm Highway Community Park, which would include soccer and ballfields. The Yelm Highway Community Park is scheduled for land acquisition in 2006 and construction in 2021. Exhibit 1a, Attachment k; Exhibit 12d; Testimony of Mr. Hannah. 38. The funding for some of the projects within the vicinity of the subject property, including Marie s Vineyard, relies on a utilities tax that has not been approved. Testimony of Mr. Hannah; Exhibit 5p; Exhibit 5h, page 2. If the utilities tax is not approved, the City will have to reevaluate the adopted LOS standards. The City representative did not know whether parks fees would be refunded to Glenmore Ridge if the LOS standards were lowered. Testimony of Mr. Hannah. 39. City parks mitigation fees are collected at the time the developer applies for sewer and water permits. The fees are deposited into a holding account and tracked by subdivision. Appropriation occurs when a project budget is developed. An appropriation ordinance is needed to move money from the holding account into the project budget. The amount withdrawn from an individual subdivision s fees for a particular project is proportional to the amount allocated to the type of park being developed (e.g., the portion of a subdivision s fees attributable to athletic fields would not be appropriated towards a different type of park project). The funds from Glenmore Ridge would be used for projects in the southeast sub-area. Testimony of Mr. Hannah; Testimony of Mr. Okerlund. 40. The City s pattern of acquiring land and reserving it for future development, as well as its methodology for appropriating fees for project costs, ensures that mitigation fees are spent in a timely fashion even when the construction of facilities is not scheduled for more than twenty years into the future. When fees are appropriated for land acquisition, for example, the entire portion of a subdivision s fees designated for the particular type of Glenmore Ridge, No. AAPL/PLAT 020721 Page 15

park is withdrawn from the account no portion of the fee is reserved for future construction. Testimony of Mr. Hannah 41. The Applicant argued that the City has a burden of proving that (1) there are City park projects that would be impacted by Glenmore Ridge; (2) the City park projects would benefit Glenmore Ridge; (3) the costs attributed to Glenmore Ridge are roughly proportional to the impacts; and (4) the City parks projects are built in a timely fashion. The Applicant argued that the City has not met its burden of proof. Argument of Mr. Mackie. 42. The Applicant argued that the parks mitigation fee is disproportionate to the impacts of Glenmore Ridge because the fee does not take into account the facilities of neighboring jurisdictions. The Applicant argued that because the subject property is located at the edge of the UGA, residents are likely to use the facilities of neighboring jurisdictions. The Applicant argued that the City must determine the percentage of City parks use of the proposed plat. Argument of Mr. Mackie. 43. In May of 2000, a random household survey of park use of Olympia area residents was prepared by JC Draggoo & Associates for the City of Olympia. In response to a survey question in which the respondents were asked to identify their favorite park and why, the most commonly cited reasons for liking a particular park were close to home and scenic value. Exhibit 4(c)(7). Although in its analysis of the Glenmore Ridge plat the City cited the Draggoo study as indicating that residents within the urban growth area utilized neighborhood parks, athletic fields, sports courts, urban trails, and open space facilities located within the urban growth area and within the city limits without discrimination, the study could also be cited as indicating that distance from home is a factor in park use. Exhibit 1a, Attachment j, page 9. 44. Under the City s Comprehensive Plan, the City is responsible for providing parks facilities to serve the UGA. In contrast, there is not evidence that the cities of Lacey and Tumwater plan their park facilities to serve residents of the Olympia UGA. The City expects the 52 new residents of Glenmore Ridge to use City recreational facilities. Testimony of Mr. Okerlund. Olympia Comprehensive Plan Goal CFP2 is to meet current needs for capital facilities in Olympia and its Growth Area, correct deficiencies in existing systems, and replace obsolete facilities. Exhibit 1a, Attachment j. 45. The City s Comprehensive Plan does not specify a service area radius for the various parks facilities, with the exception of neighborhood parks. For neighborhood parks, the Comprehensive Plan goal is to have a neighborhood park within a half-mile radius of every residence. Testimony of Mr. Okerlund. 46. Some of the projects identified in the City s 2003-2025 Parks Implementation Schedule are a greater distance from the subject property than facilities within neighboring jurisdictions. The 85-acre City of Tumwater Pioneer Park, credited as open space in the Cheri Estates plat, is within a mile and a half of the subject property. However, the only open space project in the southeast sub-area identified in the Parks Implementation Glenmore Ridge, No. AAPL/PLAT 020721 Page 16

Schedule is the Chambers Lake Parcel, which is 3.8 miles from the subject property. Exhibit 4(c)(2); Exhibit 1a, Attachment k; Exhibit 5(e). The 8.5-acre City of Lacey William A. Bush Park, which includes Chehalis-Western Trail access, is within a mile and a half of the subject property, and the 40-acre City of Lacey Wonderwood Park, which includes athletic fields and tennis courts, is within two miles of the subject property. In contrast, the Marie s Vineyard neighborhood park site is 3.6 miles from the subject property. Exhibit 4(c)(2); Exhibit 1a, Attachment k. Within the southeast subarea, the City of Olympia parks projects closest to the subject property are the Centennial Neighborhood Park (0.9 mile), the Yelm Highway Neighborhood Park (0.9 mile), and the Yelm Highway Community Park (0.9 mile). Although land acquisition for these facilities is scheduled for 2005-2006, construction of these facilities is scheduled for 2021-2024. Exhibit 1a, Attachment k. CONCLUSIONS Jurisdiction The Hearing Examiner is granted jurisdiction to hear and decide applications for preliminary plats and appeals of SEPA threshold determinations pursuant to RCW 58.17.330, TCC 2.06.010 and TCC 18.10.030. Criteria for Review: Preliminary Plats To approve a preliminary plat, the Hearing Examiner, must find that the following criteria for review set forth in Thurston County Code 18.12.090 are satisfied: 1. Appropriate provisions are made for the public health, safety, other public ways, transit stops, potable water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks and recreation, playgrounds, schools and school grounds and all other relevant facts, including sidewalks and other planning features that assure safe walking conditions for students who only walk to and from school; and 2. The public use and interest will be served by the platting of such subdivision and dedication. Conclusions on Preliminary Plat Application 1. With conditions, the plat makes appropriate provision for the public health and safety and all other relevant facts. Access to all lots would be provided via a public road constructed to City of Olympia standards. City of Olympia potable water and sanitary sewer would be provided to the lots. There are no recreational facilities on site, and none are required by County ordinances. However, payment of parks mitigation fees pursuant to the MDNS would offset the plat s impacts on planned City park facilities in the area. Payment of school mitigation pursuant to the MDNS would offset the plat s impacts on schools. The plat would include sidewalks. The proposed infrastructure, including roads and the storm drainage system, would comply with applicable standards. Findings of Fact Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 15. Glenmore Ridge, No. AAPL/PLAT 020721 Page 17

2. With conditions, the public use and interest would be served. Particular features of the plat that are in the public interest include the sidewalks, the payment of traffic, parks and school mitigation fees, the planting of trees within Tract D, and conformance with adopted zoning standards. Findings of Fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 11, 13 & 15. Conclusions on SEPA Appeal 1. RCW 43.21C.060 specifies that government action may be conditioned pursuant to SEPA only if the conditions are based upon policies identified by the appropriate governmental authority and incorporated into regulations, plans or codes which are formally designated by the agency... as possible bases for the exercise of authority pursuant to this chapter. The action may be conditioned only to mitigate specific adverse environmental impacts which are identified in the environmental documents prepared under this chapter. RCW 43.21C.060 (emphasis added). 2. Consistent with the state requirements cited above, the County SEPA regulations allow conditions to be attached to a permit if such conditions are necessary to mitigate specific probable adverse environmental impacts and if the conditions are based on one or more of the policies set forth in TCC 17.09.150(D). TCC 17.09.150(B). 3. The County has adopted, among other things, the Thurston County Comprehensive Plan and all sub-area and joint plans as bases for the its exercise of SEPA authority. TCC 17.09.150(D)(3). As described in Finding of Fact No. 29, the Comprehensive Plan for Olympia and the Urban Growth Area includes goals and policies relating to the need for Olympia to provide capital facilities for its UGA through a CFP. Thurston County has adopted these Olympia Comprehensive Plan goals and policies as part of its joint plan with the City of Olympia. Therefore, these Olympia Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are also County SEPA policies. The County acted consistently with the adopted policies when it included parks mitigation fees, based on the City s CFP, in the SEPA MDNS. Finding of Fact No. 29. 4. The collection of mitigation fees is limited by RCW 82.02.020, which provides in relevant part as follows: Except as provided in RCW 82.02.050 through 82.02.090, no county, city, town, or other municipal corporation shall impose any tax, fee, or charge, either direct or indirect, on the construction or reconstruction of residential buildings, commercial buildings, industrial buildings, or on any other building or building space or appurtenance thereto, or on the development, subdivision, classification, or reclassification of land. However, this section does not preclude dedications of land or easements within the proposed development or plat which the county, city, town, or other municipal corporation can demonstrate are reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development or plat to which the dedication of land or easement is to apply. This section does not prohibit voluntary agreements with counties, cities, towns, or other municipal corporations that allow a payment in lieu of a dedication of Glenmore Ridge, No. AAPL/PLAT 020721 Page 18

land or to mitigate a direct impact that has been identified as a consequence of a proposed development, subdivision, or plat. A local government shall not use such voluntary agreements for local off-site transportation improvements within the geographic boundaries of the area or areas covered by an adopted transportation program authorized by chapter 39.92 RCW. Any such voluntary agreement is subject to the following provisions: (1) The payment shall be held in a reserve account and may only be expended to fund a capital improvement agreed upon by the parties to mitigate the identified, direct impact; (2) The payment shall be expended in all cases within five years of collection; and (3) Any payment not so expended shall be refunded with interest at the rate applied to judgments to the property owners of record at the time of the refund; however, if the payment is not expended within five years due to delay attributable to the developer, the payment shall be refunded without interest. No county, city, town, or other municipal corporation shall require any payment as part of such a voluntary agreement which the county, city, town, or other municipal corporation cannot establish is reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development or plat. RCW 82.02.020 (emphasis added). 5. The language to mitigate a direct impact that has been identified as a consequence of a proposed development, subdivision, or plat and reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development or plat implies that nexus and proportionality are required to assess a mitigation fee. However, recent Washington Supreme Court decisions have opted for the statutory analysis over the constitutional analysis in determining impacts and mitigation. See Isla Verde v. City of Camas, 146 Wn.2d 740 (2002); Benchmark v. City of Battle Ground, 146 Wn.2d 685 (2002). The burden is on the City to demonstrate that the statutory elements have been satisfied. Isla Verde, 146 Wn.2d at 755-56. 6. In Isla Verde, the Washington Supreme Court decided that a condition of preliminary plat approval requiring, consistent with a City ordinance, that the plat retain 30% of its area as open space violated R CW 82.02.020 because the City could not show that the 30% set aside was reasonably necessary as a direct result of the plat. The evidence presented by the City in favor of the condition was that the plat would result in wooded area being converted to developed property and thus there would be an impact on wildlife. Further the City submitted that setting aside the open space would be consistent with City open space policies. The Court rejected this evidence to support the open space condition because the evidence did not establish a relationship between the 30% open space requirement and the impacts of the development. Instead, the open space condition to Glenmore Ridge, No. AAPL/PLAT 020721 Page 19