39 <br />"safe access at the entry to the development site from Oakleigh Lane." Nor did <br />2 PWD make any claim or provide any explanation that the section of Oakleigh <br />3 Lane where the right-of-way dedication was required was any different than the <br />4 rest of Oakleigh Lane between the development site and River Road. <br />5 Facts are facts; and when the City finds that, without being widened, <br />6 Oakleigh Lane is unsafe in order to justify an exaction, the City cannot then <br />7 ignore that finding when the City evaluates the application's compliance with <br />8 approval criteria that require the PUD be served by a safe and adequate street. <br />9 Although the PWD findings do not state explicitly that Oakleigh Lane <br />10 would be unsafe after the PUD is developed unless all or most of Oakleigh <br />11 Lane is also widened from the development site to River Road, such a <br />12 statement is unnecessary for Conte's argument since no other reasonable <br />13 conclusion can be drawn from the PWD findings. To conclude otherwise would <br />14 require a finding that the lack of adequate right-of-way immediately adjacent to <br />15 the development's northern property line is the only deficiency on Oakleigh <br />16 Lane that would warrant PWD's findings that "safe vehicular, pedestrian and <br />17 bicycle travel and emergency response and access will be at risk" and "the 164 <br />18 new vehicle trips per day generated by the proposed development, along with <br />19 the additional pedestrian and bicycle traffic generated by the proposed <br />20 development, will not be assured of safe access via Oakleigh Lane." <br />