It seems like most of the costs addressed here should have been well-understood by the developer at the outset of the project. It's not like the City standard for a street that can handle two cars passing each other (20 feet) is unusual.
In fact, my own street, built by the developer who built my neighborhood, is 30 feet wide, allowing for parking on both sides AND for car to pass one another. Fortunately the City cut that down to 20 feet in a process 15 years ago that I was involved with. The Olympia Safe Streets Campaign proposed narrowing the street standard to make residential streets more human-scale, reduce driving speeds, and reduce costs to development.
We originally proposed an 18-foot standard, as exists for some streets in Cooper Crest in NW Olympia. The City took fire and garbage trucks over to Cooper Crest, and we mimicked what would happen if the garbage truck had to pass the UPS truck -- something that really happens. The Fire Department initially wanted a wider standard, but in the end, the City agreed to 20-feet. That narrower 20-foot standard saves developers BOTH a bunch of money AND reduces the land they must dedicate to streets compared with the wider streets of the past.
As for sidewalks, yes, "complete streets" are a standard for all new construction. Street trees, sidewalks, and street lighting. The developer should have known that. These requirements have been in place since at least 1994 -- thirty years ago. They were already in place when I served on the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) in 1995-99.
If the developer was being asked to build sidewalks beyond the perimeter of the development, yes, that would be an off-site improvement. State law specifically requires that developers provide for "safe walking routes to school" and that CAN include off-site improvements on adjacent blocks. For example, when Briggs Village was built in SE Olympia in the 1990's, they were required to build a sidewalk along Pifer Street to connect the new neighborhood to Olympia High School. I don't see that as the case here.
Yes, housing is expensive. That's because it costs a lot to do it right. I, for one, don't want new developments to immediately place a cost burden on the neighbors and other citizens in the City for improvements at the site of development. Those should be done while the equipment is on-site during initial construction, not left for the rest of us to pay for later.
If you can't afford to do it right the first time, where are you going to get the money to do it over?
Please explain the inappropriate content below.
