building(s) and the primary adjacent street." VRI argued that Valley River Way is the primary <br />adjacent street and that because parking was proposed between the front fagade of the proposed <br />building and Valley River Way that EC 9.2173(4)(a) is violated. Although the EC does not define <br />"primary adjacent street," I agree with VRI that Valley River Way is the primary adjacent street <br />in this case because the only access is from Valley River Way, Delta Highway is an interstate <br />highway, and Delta Highway is at a significantly different grade than the proposed building site. <br />The applicant subsequently included an adjustment review request for this requirement. An <br />adjustment is permitted under EC 9.8030(6) pursuant to EC 9.2173(12.). The applicant's June 29, <br />2016 submission thoroughly explains why an adjustment is warranted, and VRI did not specifically <br />respond to the adjustment request in their final response. I agree with the applicant's arguments <br />and adopt its discussion at page 5-6 as findings in this decision. EC 92173(4)(a) is satisfied. <br />5. On-Street Pedestrian Circulation <br />Another applicable development standard under EC 9.8440(.5')(k.) is EC 9.2173(6)(d), <br />which provides: <br />"Internal pedestrian walkways provided in conformance with subsection (a) <br />above shall provide weather protection features such as awnings or arcades <br />within 30 feet of all customer entrances." <br />The applicant and VRf dispute what this provision requires. VRI argues that this provision <br />requires that there be weather protection features for 30 feet extending from all entrances. The <br />applicant argues that this provision just means that there must be a weather protection feature <br />within 30 feet of each entrance - not that each weather protection feature extend for 30 feet. There <br />are three entrances to the proposed hotel. The applicant argues that conditions of approval can be <br />imposed that require a weather protection feature within 30 feet of each entrance. VRI argues that <br />the application does not include weather protection features that meet the 30 foot requirement. <br />I tend to agree with the applicant that the language of the provision means that there must <br />just be a weather protection feature within 30 feet of each entrance - not that the weather protection <br />feature extend 30 feet from each entrance. Although I agree with VRI that a provision that would <br />allow a one-foot long cover 29.feet from an entrance to satisfy the provision does not make very <br />much sense, I think the provision anticipates more practical weather protection features. In any <br />event, the provision could be satisfied with conditions of approval for either interpretation. If a <br />reviewing body determines that the application meets all the other applicable criteria, the <br />Hearings Official Decision (WG 16-1/SR 16-1./ARB 16-3) 9 <br />