16 <br />1 easement. The proposed turnaround meets the dimension <br />2 requirements for a hammerhead. Referral comments from the Fire <br />3 Marshal state no concern with the turnaround. The permanent <br />4 turnaround is anticipated at the end of Oakleigh Lane, when properties <br />5 to the north further develop. As recommended previously at EC <br />6 9.8320(5)(a), the applicant is required to dedicate right-of-way for the <br />7 portion of the future turnaround that would overlap the subject <br />8 property. Based on these findings, the following condition of <br />9 approval is necessary: <br />10 <br />11 Prior to final PUD approval, the applicant shall dedicate a <br />12 temporary emergency vehicle access easement over the on-site <br />13 hammerhead and the access drive from Oakleigh Lane, and show <br />14 this easement on the final PUD plans." Rec. 376. ER 42. <br />15 <br />16 The intervenor fails to address these findings, or demonstrate any error therein. <br />17 Accordingly, this subassignment of error should be denied. <br />18 The intervenor, nevertheless, argues that the City erred by not <br />19 "explaining how the current configuration of Oakleigh Lane would not be an <br />20 impediment to emergency response when the PWD's analysis explicitly found <br />21 that `emergency response and access will be at risk."' Brief, p. 34. However, as <br />22 previously explained, the public works staff findings concerning "risk" relate <br />23 solely to the dedication of areas on the subject property for future improvement. <br />24 Public works did not require the widening of any other portion of Oakleigh <br />25 Lane. With regard to emergency vehicle response, public works staff <br />26 determined that the PUD would not be an impediment to emergency response <br />27 based on the hammerhead turnaround and recommended that approval be <br />28 conditioned on a temporary emergency access easement on the property until <br />29 the permanent hammerhead was developed. Rec. 1268. <br />