setback difficult, and would require removing <br />t:l significant vegetation. Allowing the adjustment <br />would contribute to the continuity (to the extent two buildings could constitute continuity) of <br />building facades along the street. <br />The second criterion is whether the adjustment creates an attractive pedestrian environment <br />along all adjacent streets. There is no pedestrian environment along Delta Highway as it is in <br />interstate highway at that point.. Therefore, allowing the adjustment would not affect the pedestrian <br />environment along Delta Way. <br />The third criterion is whether the adjustment is compatible with adjacent development. As <br />discussed earlier, McGrath's is also not located in the 25-foot required front yard setback area. <br />McGrath's is also far enough north that it would not be affected by the proposed building's location <br />outside of the setback. VRI is also far enough away that the proposed location of the building <br />would be compatible with VRI. <br />The applicant has satisfied the necessary criteria for an adjustment to the front yard setback <br />requirements of EC 9.2170(4)(b)(2). <br />VRI also argues that the application does not comply with EC 9.2170(4)(b)(4), which <br />provides that "[v]ehicular parking and circulation is not permitted in between the street and the <br />portion of the building that is used to comply with this subsection." According to VRI, the <br />application clearly calls for vehicular parking and circulation within the front yard setback which <br />violates EC 9.2170(4)(b)(4). As discussed earlier, I do not see that the front yard setback <br />requirements apply to the flag pole portion of the lot running north to Valley River Way. Therefore, <br />the vehicular circulation and parking proposed for that area does not run afoul of EC <br />9.2170(4)(b)(4)•6 <br />The applicant alternatively requests an adjustment to the front yard setback vehicular <br />parking and circulation restriction for the Delta Highway front yard setback to the east. VRI argues <br />that an adjustment is not permitted for this requirement. EC 9.2170('4)(e) provides that <br />adjustments to the minimum and maximum front yard setbacks in this subsection, except <br />subsection (4)(a), may be made, based on criteria at EC 9.8030(2) * * According to VRI, the <br />vehicular circulation and parking restriction is not a minimum or maximum front yard setback so <br />an adjustment is not allowed. EC 9.2170(4)(e), however, allows adjustments to the front yard <br />6 Even if EC 9? 170(4)(6)(4) did apply to the tla- pole portion of the lot, I agree with the applicant that an adjustment <br />would be warranted for the reasons explained in the applicant's open record submittals. <br />Hearings Official Decision (WG 16-1/SR 16-1/ARB 16-3) 6 <br />