Eugene Planning Commission <br />September 11, 2015 <br />Page 11 <br />Oakleigh Lane's lack of improvement should not be confused with an <br />inherently unsafe condition. Many streets in the City of Eugene, particularly in <br />the River Road area, are similar to Oakleigh Lane, lacking sidewalks, curbs, or <br />striping, and permitting unsegregated parking and travel by vehicles, <br />pedestrians, or cyclists. These streets encourage slower and more cautious <br />travel by drivers who are cognizant of the fact that they must share the road <br />with other users. In fact, the City of Eugene uses a similar design mechanism of <br />a single travel lane on some low volume City streets - called a "queuing street" <br />design - and has found the same to be a safe and effective method to reduce <br />travel speeds and pass-through trips for non-local travel. Oakleigh Lane is 'a <br />dead-end street, with no pass-through trips to contend with, but the on-street <br />parking and unsegregated travel can reasonably be expected to reduce travel <br />speeds." Id. at 2. <br />This expert testimony is . substantial evidence that the proposed PUD provides <br />pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation. <br />In fact, the City Hearings Official previously determined that: <br />"The Hearings Official also concurs with the applicant's October 23, 2013 final <br />argument that the queuing effect of having a single travel lane along Oakleigh <br />Lane is likely to result in lower speeds and acceptably safe conditions for <br />pedestrians. The applicant provided evidence in support of his position from <br />the city's Arterial and Collector Street Plan. The neighbors submitted this very <br />same information in Exhibit PT-1. The queuing effect is deemed effective for <br />streets that have less than 750 ADT. Even with the added trips attributable to <br />the co-housing proposal, the ADT for Oakleigh will be closer to 400 ADT at <br />most. It is reasonable to expect that the queuing effect identified in the ACSP <br />will work to calm speeds and provide reasonably safe passage [for] pedestrians <br />if the-co-housing is approved. Once again, the Hearings Official has not been <br />directed to evidence that shows that pedestrian safety will necessarily be <br />decreased to unacceptable levels simply because 16[8] ADT are added to <br />Oakleigh Lane." Hearings Official's Decision, p. 27; LUBA Rec. 47. <br />The Planning Commission affirmed this finding, and LUBA affirmed its decision. <br />Final Order, p. 4; LUBA Rec. 9. LUBA Opinion, p. 32-33 <br />On remand, although the applicant challenges Mr. Weishar's expert opinion, it <br />provides no countervailing expert testimony demonstrating -that the Oakleigh Lane <br />will-not safely provide bicycle and pedestrian circulation for residents of the PUD. In <br />fact, apart from, grossly overstating the traffic impacts on. Oakleigh Lane, the <br />opponents fall right back into the trap of assuming that. since Oakleigh Lane is not <br />designed to 'current City standards it cannot function safely as a queuing street. <br />September 4, 2015 Appeal Testimony, p. 4. <br />s <br />314 <br />434 <br />