40 <br />1 Despite the fact that the City used the PWD analysis only for the purpose <br />2 of supporting exaction of "the 22.5 and 13 foot strips of right-of-way" that the <br />3 City imposed as a condition of approval, there is nothing at all in the PWD <br />4 comments asserting that it is only the lack of these two right-of-way strips that <br />5 would put at risk "safe access via Oakleigh Lane." Applying consistent <br />6 reasoning for all or most of Oakleigh Lane from the development site to River <br />7 Road would lead inevitably to similar conclusions - i.e., Oakleigh Lane will be <br />8 inadequate and potentially unsafe unless all (or at least most) of the lane meets <br />9 the City's adopted right-of-way standards for the projected volume of traffic. <br />10 It would be absurd to conclude that Oakleigh Lane would be inadequate <br />11 and potentially unsafe solely because the lane doesn't meet City right-of-way <br />12 standards for the final fifty or so feet. <br />13 At the very least, given the PWD conclusions regarding the implications <br />14 of an insufficient right-of-way at the end of Oakleigh Lane, the City must at <br />15 least conduct an adequate analysis of the substandard right-of-way on the <br />16 longer portion of Oakleigh Lane and provide an explanation for why a different <br />17 conclusion regarding the impacts on adequacy and safety is warranted. The <br />18 City must also explain how an unmaintained street will remain adequate and <br />19 safe with twice as many vehicles running over it for years to come. <br />20 The City cited to several other statements in the PWD comments that are <br />