"An improved or unimproved public or private way, other than an alley, that is <br />created to provide ingress or egress for vehicular traffic to one or more lots or <br />parcels, excluding a private way that is created to provide ingress or egress to <br />land in conjunction with the use of land for forestry, mining, or, agricultural <br />purposes. A 'street' includes the land between right-of-way lines within the <br />ingress/egress easement areas serving multiple residential lots but excluding <br />`flagpole' portions of flag lots." <br />VRI argues that the driveway is a "street" because it provides ingress or egress for vehicular <br />traffic to one or more lots (the subject property). Although the proposed driveway is how people <br />would reach the proposed hotel, I do not think it is the driveway that provides ingress and egress <br />to the property. I think it is Valley River Way that provides ingress and egress to the property. <br />Rather than a "street," I think the flag pole access is a "driveway" as defined by EC 9.0-500: <br />"The area located outside of the public right-of-way that abuts the access <br />cormection and allows for vehicles to move to or from a development site." <br />The flag pole portion of the subject property is a driveway rather than a street. Although it <br />appears to be describing ingress/egress easement areas, the last sentence of the definition of <br />"street" also excludes the flag pole portion of flag lots. Because the flag pole portion of the property <br />is a driveway and not a street, the vision clearance standards of EC 9.6780 do not apply. <br />7. Storm Water Quality <br />EC 9.8440(5) requires that the application comply with certain standards, including EC <br />9.6792. Under EC 9.6792(3)(d) there are numerous standards that must be satisfied. VRI argues <br />that EC 9.6792(3)(d)(1) requires the applicant to submit a complete report that demonstrates <br />certain conditions exist to ensure the stormwater runoff can be adequately accommodated. VRI <br />also argues that EC 9.6792(3)(d)(2) requires that: <br />* * the applicant shall submit a report that demonstrates there is insufficient <br />land area to construct an approved infiltration or filtration facility by setting forth <br />the required size of the smallest infiltration or filtration facility needed for the <br />development's impervious surface area and a site plan demonstrating that an <br />approved infiltration or filtration facility cannot be located on the development <br />site without reducing the size of the proposed development which is otherwise <br />consistent with all other applicable lot and development standards." <br />According to VRI, this information was not provided in the stormwater report. As VRI <br />explains, the applicant admitted in its narrative that "geotechnical - work has not yet been <br />completed" and that site conditions "will be verified with the geotechnical report to be submitted <br />Hearings Official Decision (WG 16-1/SR 16-1/ARB 16-3) 11 <br />