On appeal, the appellant complains that the connectivity study was <br />inadequate because it failed to anticipate some, unspecified, maximum <br />hypothetical development of the undeveloped Tax Lot 200. However, as the <br />Hearings Official notes, EC 9.6815(2)(g)(1)(b) does not "require a showing that <br />nearby properties can be developed to their maximum potential." In fact, we <br />submit that adding this language into the code would have been error on the <br />part of the Hearings Official. The provision requires "adequate" service, it does <br />not require that one property owner make improvements to accommodate <br />maximum hypothetical development on surrounding properties. Accordingly, <br />there was no error in the Hearings Official's decision. <br />The appellant's concerns with regard to the cul-de-sac exception are more <br />problematic. In particular, the appellant fails to demonstrate that these issues <br />were raised before the Hearings Official as required by EC 9.7655(3). <br />Accordingly, this issue is not properly before the Planning Commission, and <br />cannot be a basis for overturning the Hearings Official's decision. <br />Moreover, the basis for the appellant's challenge concerning this matter is <br />unclear. In accordance with Eugene Public Works staff's request, OMC agreed <br />to dedicate a portion of its property to construct a future hammerhead <br />turnaround, and the decision included a condition of approval requiring OMC to <br />dedicate an expanded area recommended by Public Works for the turnaround. <br />HO Decision, p. 19 & 21. As staff noted, the turnaround will be completed once <br />the northerly property developed, but is not feasible or necessary at this time. Id. <br />at 19. The appellant fails to identify any error in this decision. <br />The appellant appears to argue that the exception to EC 9.6820(3) for cul <br />de sacs longer than 400 feet was improper. However, as staff found, EC <br />9.6820(5)(b) provides that an exception may be granted where "buildings or <br />other existing development on the subject property or adjacent lands, including <br />previously subdivided but vacant lots or parcels, physically preclude a <br />connection now or in the future, considering the potential for redevelopment." <br />OMC's connectivity study clearly established that this was the case by <br />demonstrating that no connection could be made between Oakleigh Lane and <br />McClure Lane to the south because "All properties abutting the site to the south <br />along the existing McClure Lane are fully developed." This adequately justified <br />the exception, and establishes that there is no basis for this appeal issue. <br />B. Dedication <br />The appellant also argues that a greater dedication is required to provide <br />increased traffic capacity and pedestrian circulation! However, this presupposes <br />that traffic capacity or pedestrian safety is actually risk. Neither is true. With <br />regard to capacity, Oakleigh Lane has the capacity for at least 750 trips per day, <br />and not even the appellant argues that the proposed development would <br />'The appellant also asserts generally that the Hearings Official erred by failing to <br />evaluate EC 9.0020 under the dedication requirements in EC 9.6820. However, <br />EC 9.0020 does not provide an additional approval criteria. Instead, the <br />applicable standards are set forth in EC 9.6800 et seq. In any case, the applicant <br />fails to demonstrate precisely how the public health, safety and welfare would be <br />adversely impacted by dedicating additional area for Oakleigh Lane. <br />4 <br />238 <br />