25 <br />1 for vehicle and pedestrian traffic, as well as for emergency vehicles and <br />2 delivery services, provided the paved surface is not blocked by parked <br />3 vehicles. With regard to public comments received about vehicle parking <br />4 occurring on the shoulders of the roadway, Public Works staff notes that, <br />5 technically, such parking is not allowed. The street could be signed for no <br />6 parking as part of improving the street, but not before, because the City does <br />7 not maintain unimproved streets." Rec 46-47. <br />8 This staff statement directly conflicts with the more specific and thorough <br />9 evaluation provided by PWD traffic engineers as the justification for the <br />10 exaction of right-of-way and future improvements on and adjacent to the <br />11 northern area of the development site. Inescapably, if the conclusory statements <br />12 in the staff finding (just cited) were true, then the City would have no <br />13 justification for imposing Conditions of Approval 3, 4 and 7 at Rec 83. <br />14 Instead, despite numerous disclaimers by the City, the only reasonable <br />15 conclusion about the PWD analysis is this: 45 feet of right-of-way is what's <br />16 necessary for the last fifty feet of Oakleigh Lane to be adequate and safe; and <br />17 therefore that longer part of Oakleigh Lane leading to and from the final fifty <br />18 feet must be as wide. There will be almost twice the traffic on the section of <br />19 Oakleigh Lane closest to River Road than on the section adjacent to the PUD.6 <br />20 Further, although the above staff statement is lengthy, it doesn't provide <br />6 While there may be factor(s) that would require wider or narrower ROW on <br />parts of Oakleigh Lane, the record contains no claim or evidence to suggest <br />that's the case. If such factors exist, the City must explain them on remand. <br />