28 <br />does not even claim that it "results in acceptable safe conditions for <br />2 pedestrians" in any way shape or form. All the Eugene Local Street Design <br />3 Standard states is the following: <br />4 "This queuing effect has been found to be an effective and safe method to <br />5 reduce speeds and non-local traffic." Rec 894. <br />6 In other words, the queuing effect may reduce speeds and non-local traffic, but <br />7 there's no assurance regarding a pedestrian or bicyclist's safety when they must <br />8 use the same roadway as vehicles. Quite the contrary - the cited standard <br />9 actually makes clear that the street must be designed and striped for a single <br />10 traffic lane and at least one parking lane: <br />11 "The single traffic lane is intended to create a `queuing street', such that <br />12 when opposing vehicles meet, one of the vehicles must yield by pulling into <br />13 a vacant portion of the adjacent parking lane." Ibid. <br />14 The cited standard also says nothing about a "queuing street" that does not <br />15 have sidewalks and therefore forces pedestrians to walk in the street. <br />16 Oakleigh Lane clearly does not meet the standards for a "queuing street," <br />17 and thus the "queuing effect" is not at all relevant to this case unless the City <br />18 were to impose adequate conditions of approval for the entirety of Oakleigh <br />19 Lane to have the necessary right-of-way, striped lanes and sidewalks to meet <br />20 the standards for a safe and adequate "queuing street." <br />21 In sum, both the EPC and the Hearings Official ignored substantial <br />