18 <br />Intervenors-Petitioners, nevertheless, attempt the same exercise in <br />"inductive reasoning" that the City rejected below by pointing to the public <br />works staff findings in support of the half-street dedication in order to infer that <br />a safety issue exists.' Intervenors-Petitioners argue that the "EPWD took the <br />position that, in order to be safe, Oakleigh Lane must be built to the City's <br />minimum street standards and anything less than that would place `the public <br />interest in safe vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle travel and emergency response <br />and access ...at risk." Opening Brief, p. 21. There are at least three problems <br />with their argument: (1) Public Works staff expressly stated that Oakleigh Lane <br />was safe to accommodate all traffic from the proposed development; (2) Public <br />Works staff recommended the half-street dedication at issue and did not require <br />improvement of that dedicated area; and (3) the City explained that the <br />dedication was to address future needs and not any current safety risks. <br />First, the City public works staff stated that Oakleigh Lane was safe with <br />the proposed PUD. Staff had "no concerns related to traffic safety or poor <br />services levels that will result from this development." LUBA Rec. 1265.5 <br />s Licensed Professional Transportation Engineer Mike Weishar with Access <br />Engineer concurred that development would not "reduce safety or service levels <br />in the area." LUBA Rec. 1116. While the Intervenors-Petitioners complain <br />about this expert testimony in a footnote, they point to no countervailing expert <br />testimony that identifies any traffic safety issue on Oakleigh Lane. <br />