Applicant asks to delete sidewalk condition along Adamson Way; expert: it functions as an alley

A focal dispute at the hearing involved staff condition 3(c), which would require sidewalks along the property frontage on Adamson Way and Fife Way. The condition traces to a prior preliminary plan (condition 9(a)) that staff says requires standard sidewalks along internal roads. The applicant asked that the sidewalk requirement along the east side of Adamson Way be deleted.

Applicant expert Eduardo Diaz Campbell argued the Adamson Way frontage is better characterized as an alley: its maximum right-of-way width is only about 36 feet and narrows to 31 feet where it meets Crane Highway, he testified, leaving insufficient room for a sidewalk without disturbing existing trees and light poles. "There was, there was never ever going to be a sidewalk there," Diaz Campbell said in describing the original design and right-of-way constraints. He said the original subdivision plan located sidewalks on the master-association land in several places and that the site could still be served by the interior sidewalk network and a crosswalk to reach the daycare site.

Opposing counsel Stan Brown countered that the condition as written requires the property owner to provide sidewalk along the property frontage and that the examiner and counsel cannot require improvements on third-party property (the homeowners/master association's land). Brown also raised a procedural objection: he reserved the right to strike portions of Diaz Campbell’s testimony that adopt conclusions drafted by the applicant’s attorney unless Diaz Campbell files a separate expert-authored report.

The examiner suggested leaving the record open to allow the applicant to resubmit the statement of justification or an expert-authored report and to provide corrected exhibits showing the proposed deletions and site-plan updates. The transcript contains detailed mapping of where the sidewalks are shown on the preliminary plan exhibits and the technical arguments from both parties; the examiner did not issue a ruling on deletion of condition 3(c) in the provided segments.