18 <br />1 (b) "Buildings or other existing development on the subject property or <br />2 adjacent lands, including previously subdivided but vacant lots or <br />3 parcels, physically preclude a connection now or in the future, <br />4 considering the potential for redevelopment." <br />5 The Decision erred in granting an exception pursuant to EC 9.6820(5) because <br />6 neither condition was met in this case. Natural resources to the east have no <br />7 impact on Oakleigh Lane, which runs only west of the proposed development. <br />8 And there is no development on the subject property or the property to the <br />9 north that prevents a connecting street, as demonstrated by the applicant's own <br />10 street connectivity plan. Second Supplemental Rec 3. <br />11 Furthermore, even if it were the case that there were no feasible <br />12 alternative connection between the proposed development and River Road, <br />13 other than Oakleigh Lane, that situation would justify an exemption only to <br />14 EC 9.6820(3), but not to EC 9.6820(1) and (4). <br />15 EC 9.6820(1) and (4) are clearly meant as requirements that must apply <br />16 to a long, dead-end street, such as Oakleigh Lane, that exceeds the normal <br />17 length limit. EC 9.6820(4) makes absolutely clear that the City Council meant <br />18 to require improvements to long cul-de-sacs in order to "provide safe <br />19 circulation for pedestrians, bicyclists and emergency vehicles" - exactly the <br />20 same outcome that is required by the text of the EC 9.8320(5) PUD approval <br />21 criteria that references EC 9.6820. <br />