17 <br />argument under the second assignment provides no basis for reversal or <br />remand. <br />A. Oakleigh Lane is Not Unsafe. <br />The Second Assignment of Error is permeated with the faulty <br />assumption that the City of Eugene required a 22.5-foot half-street dedication <br />because it determined that "in order to be safe, Oakleigh Lane must be built to <br />the City's minimum street standards." Opening Brief, p. 21. To the contrary, <br />the City actually found that Oakleigh Lane was safe and would continue to be <br />safe with the additional traffic from the proposed PUD. As explained in its <br />decision, the City required a half-street dedication from the applicant to <br />facilitate future development of the street to City standards, but immediate <br />improvement of the street to City standards was not anticipated or required. <br />While the Intervenors-Petitioners urge that there are safety issues with <br />Oakleigh Lane, the City found no evidence of any existing safety hazard, with <br />or without the proposed development. The City's findings on this point are <br />clear: <br />"Although the Hearings Official understands the neighbors' <br />concerns about increased numbers of vehicles using Oakleigh <br />Lane, the strong assertion that an increase in ADT will result in <br />traffic accidents or actual danger to pedestrians and bicyclists is <br />not supported by evidence in the record. Assertion is not <br />evidence and neither is an explanation of inductive reasoning. <br />Therefore, the Hearings Official cannot substitute the <br />neighbors' very strongly held opinions that more cars will <br />necessarily decrease traffic safety for actual evidence." <br />LUBA Rec. 374. ER 85. <br />