makes clear that the condition cannot be ensured. Thus, this statement is in no way "reliable, <br />probative and substantial," as required for valid findings. <br />The Hearings Official also relied upon the applicant's claim14 that: <br />"the queuing effect of having a single travel lane along Oakleigh Lane is likely to result in <br />lower speeds and acceptably safe conditions for pedestrians." (Decision at 27) <br />This assertion came from the applicant's attorney, not a traffic engineer or anyone with any . <br />relevant expertise on this issue. Moreover, it was not based on any evidence or analysis specific <br />to Oakleigh Lane and doesn't even claim anything stronger than that it is "likely" to result in safe <br />conditions. To satisfy EC 9.8320(5)(b), the applicant would have to provide substantial evidence <br />that the "queuing effect" would ensure safe conditions. <br />Furthermore, if the "queuing effect" were adequate to create safe conditions, the PWD traffic <br />engineers would presumably have relied on that same effect and would not have found that <br />Oakleigh Lane needed widening and improvements to ensure safety. In fact, the citation for the <br />"queuing effect" does not claim that it "results in ...acceptable safe conditions for pedestrians" in <br />any way shape or form. All the Eugene Local Street Design Standard states is the following: <br />"This queuing effect has been found to be an effective and safe method to reduce speeds and <br />non-local traffic." <br />Reduce speeds and non-local traffic. Period. Not a word about pedestrian or bicyclist's safety <br />when they must use the same roadway as vehicles. <br />In addition, the cited standard makes clear that the street must be designed and striped for a <br />single traffic lane and at least one parking lane: <br />"The single traffic lane is intended to create a 'queuing street', such that when opposing vehicles meet, <br />one of the vehicles must yield by pulling into a vacant portion of the adjacent parking lane." <br />The cited standard also says nothing about a "queuing street" that does not have sidewalks and <br />therefore forces pedestrians to walk in the street <br />Oakleigh Lane clearly does not meet the standards for a "queuing street," and thus the "queuing <br />effect" cannot be relevant to this-case unless the Planning Commission imposes adequate <br />conditions of approval for the entirety of Oakleigh Lane to have the necessary right-of-way, <br />striped lanes and sidewalks to meet the standards for a safe and adequate "queuing street." <br />In sum, the Hearings Official ignored evidence that Oakleigh Lane requires widening and <br />improvements to meet the requirements of C 9.8320(5)(b) and relied on invalid and irrelevant <br />"evidence" as the basis for his findings. <br />14 Letter from Zach Mittge, dated October 23, 2013, pages 4-5, <br />Conte Testimony - December 5, 2013 PDT 13-1 Page 12 <br />268 <br />