Full Text
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RESPONSE TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS FROM CITY AND AEB - 1 A R A M B U R U & E U S T I S , L L P 720 Third Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel. [PHONE REDACTED] • Fax [PHONE REDACTED] BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF REDMOND In the Matter of the Appeal of Eugene Zakhareyev Of the June 12, 2018 approval Site Plan Entitlement LAND-2013- 00171 Decision for the Anjuman-E- Burhani Mosque at 15252 NE 51st Street, Redmond Appeal No. LAND-2018-00701 of LAND-2013-00171 RESPONSE TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS FROM CITY AND AEB 1. INTRODUCTION. The City of Redmond and the Anjuman-e-Burhani Mosque (“AEB”) have filed motions to dismiss portions of the appeal filed by Eugene Zakhareyev. For the reasons stated below, both motions should be denied and this matter should proceed to hearing on September 10, 2018. 2. STANDARD FOR REVIEW. The motions of the City and AEB request that the Hearing Examiner dismiss certain issues in Appellant Zakhareyev’s appeal based on issues of law. The only authority cited for the City and AEB motions is from the Hearing Examiner Rules of Procedure, VI.A.2.f and Subsection allows the Hearing Examiner “To consider ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RESPONSE TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS FROM CITY AND AEB - 2 A R A M B U R U & E U S T I S , L L P 720 Third Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel. [PHONE REDACTED] • Fax [PHONE REDACTED] and rule upon all procedural and other motions appropriate to the proceeding;. . However, no authority is cited that allows pre-hearing dispositive motions in these rules or in Chapter 4.28 of the Redmond Municipal Code (RMC). If indeed the Examiner has authority to issue dispositive rulings, the usual rules for such motions from the Superior Court should apply. The City and AEB motions are similar to motions made under Civil Rule 12(b)(6). The court grants such motions only sparingly. Collins v. Lomas & Nettleton, 29 Wn.App. 415, 419 (1981). All of the factual allegations in the appeal must be accepted as true (Dennis v. Haggen, 35 Wn.App. 432, 434 (1983)) and the motion will be granted only when an appellant can prove no facts that would entitle that appellants to the relief requested. See Orwick v. City of Seattle, 103 Wn.2d 249 (1984). As will be shown below, even if the Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to rule on these motions, the motions of the Respondents do not meet the high standard required by the applicable legal authority. 3. NATURE OF REVIEW OF SITE PLANS. As described in the motions filed, this appeal concerns a RMC 21.76.070.Y “Site Plan Entitlement” or “SPE.” Under Subsection 3, the “Decision Criteria” are extraordinarily broad: 3. Decision Criteria. a. The Technical Committee, composed of the Departments of Planning and Public Works, shall review all Development Review permits with the State Environmental Policy Act and the RZC. Thus the entire Redmond Zoning code is incorporated into the decision criteria. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RESPONSE TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS FROM CITY AND AEB - 3 A R A M B U R U & E U S T I S , L L P 720 Third Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel. [PHONE REDACTED] • Fax [PHONE REDACTED] Included in RMC 21.76.070.Y is the purpose section, which requires that review “achieve the following purposes:” Y. Site Plan Entitlement. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to ensure that site plans reviewed individually or collectively by the Technical Committee, Design Review Board, Landmarks and Heritage Commission, and Code Administrator achieve the following purposes: a. Compliance with the provisions of the RZC and all other applicable law; b. Coordination, as is reasonable and appropriate, with other known or anticipated development on private properties in the area and with known or anticipated right-of-way and other public projects within the area; c. The encouragement of proposals that embody good design principles that will result in high-quality development on the subject property; d. The adequacy of streets and utilities in the area of the subject property to serve the anticipated demand from the proposal. e. Determination that the proposed access to the subject property is the optimal location and configuration for access. In addition, RMC 21.70.070.B includes a list of criteria “applicable to all land use permits” which includes consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and matters such as the level of development, including measure of density, the availability of infrastructure and the “character of the development.” 4. RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS BY ISSUE. 4.1 ISSUE ADEQUACY OF ACCESS. Both the City and AEB claim the challenge of Mr. Zakhareyev to the adequacy of access, as stated in Issue is somehow improper because he cites to WSDOT standards. As will be discussed herein, the objections should be denied because they require evidence and testimony to be deduced at the hearing and are incorrect as a matter of law. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RESPONSE TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS FROM CITY AND AEB - 4 A R A M B U R U & E U S T I S , L L P 720 Third Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel. [PHONE REDACTED] • Fax [PHONE REDACTED] The motions are particularly inappropriate because they seek to shield from review property and permit actions of both the City and AEB. As the City motion indicates, the City was negotiating an easement which would allow AEB to use and widen an existing access point for its parcel while it was reviewing the AEB application for Site Plan Entitlement (SPE). City Motion at 3, lines 11-13. It was only after the SPE for AEB was issued, and this appeal filed, that the City/AEB negotiations concluded and the City recorded the requested easement on July 9, 2018. This easement was essential to the approval of the project because the existing fourteen foot curbcut would be inadequate for the AEB religious facility use. The history of the easement is important, but not fully disclosed. The City admits that its ownership of right-of-way in the area derives from a 1991 Deed from WSDOT to the City (Motion page 2, lines 9-13) and attaches the Deed to its motion as Exhibit D. What the City - and AEB - don’t disclose is the limitation in the 1991 Deed, as follows: The Grantee herein, its successors or assigns, shall have no right of ingress and egress to, from and between said SR 520 and the lands herein conveyed and will maintain the control of ingress and egress to, from and between the lands herein conveyed and the lands adjacent thereto, as indicated by the prohibition of access symbol appearing on said Exhibit Parcel 5326 on Sheet 11 was the “Haggen” parcel, which has now been conveyed to the AEB. The “Road Approach Schedule” near the bottom of the page indicates that the Haggen parcel will have a “Type A” approach to SR 520. The “Access Notes” on the same page say: Type A Approach is an off and On approach, in legal manner, not to exceed 14' ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RESPONSE TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS FROM CITY AND AEB - 5 A R A M B U R U & E U S T I S , L L P 720 Third Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel. [PHONE REDACTED] • Fax [PHONE REDACTED] in width, for sole purpose of serving a single family residence. The City acknowledges this restriction in Exhibit E to its motion, the “Access Easement Agreement” in Recital C, page 2: A portion of the Limited Access Land was secured from Grantee with the provision that future access to Grantee’s property be restricted to a Type A Road Approach on the north side of the FF line, Opposite Station 15+75 of the Highway Plan: SR520, Northrop Interchange to Jct SR 202. Notwithstanding the limitations in their deed from WSDOT, the City has now granted an easement that violates the express terms of that deed. It allows expansion of the easement from 14 to 20 feet, and allows use by AEB, a religious facility equivalent, instead of continuing the limitation to use by a single family residence. The Appellant has raised, in its appeal, the inconsistency of the access granted by the City’s deed with other regulations, and with the easement recently granted to AEB. The City contends this discussion is outside the Hearing Examiner’s subject- matter jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City admits that all lots in the City must have access to a public right of way under RZC 21.52.030. Motion at 5, lines 8-11. The AEB property does have access to NE 51st Street pursuant to the 1991 quit claim deed for a single family house, a right not contested herein. The issue is whether it is appropriate to grant expanded access, which was expressly prohibited in the 1991 quit claim deed. AEB contends in its motion that approval criteria for SPE are limited by RZC 21.76.070.Y. However the “Decision Criteria” found in Subsection 3 of that section are ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RESPONSE TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS FROM CITY AND AEB - 6 A R A M B U R U & E U S T I S , L L P 720 Third Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel. [PHONE REDACTED] • Fax [PHONE REDACTED] both broad and vague: 3. Decision Criteria. a. The Technical Committee, composed of the Departments of Planning and Public Works, shall review all Development Review permits with the State Environmental Policy Act and the RZC. Thus the entire Redmond Zoning code is incorporated into the decision criteria. However even RZC 21.76.070.Y.1, the purpose section, emphasizes that SPE review must consider access issues: d. The adequacy of streets and utilities in the area of the subject property to serve the anticipated demand from the proposal. e. Determination that the proposed access to the subject property is the optimal location and configuration for access. Both of these subsections emphasize road issues and Subsection specially required consideration of whether the “proposed access to the subject property is the optimal location and configuration for access.” This broad standard clearly allows consideration in this appeal of whether the access is consistent with access standards and criteria, including those WSDOT standards particularly related to access to limited access highways. In addition, a memo from the Mayor to the City Council on May 1, 2018, attached as Attachment 1 to the Declaration of Eugene Zavhareyev in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (Zavhareyev Decl.), addressed the granting of an easement by the City to AEB. In pertinent part, the Memo provides: While WSDOT no longer owns the property, the terms of the quitclaim deed require the City to follow WSDOT design criteria when considering proposals to widen access from adjacent properties to the City-owned section of NE 51st Street. (WSDOT letter, August 24, 2012). ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RESPONSE TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS FROM CITY AND AEB - 7 A R A M B U R U & E U S T I S , L L P 720 Third Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel. [PHONE REDACTED] • Fax [PHONE REDACTED] (Emphasis supplied). At page 6 of the SPE Decision, at Paragraph 8 (Exhibit A to the City motion) admits that “Additional Standards are applicable to the use (churches)” and says that condition is met because the “project was reviewed for compliance by WSDOT who signed off on 12.12.2017.” These materials confirm the WSDOT standards were applied to the approval of the access and easement from the City of Redmond to AEB and are appropriately reviewed in this application. The City further claims that consideration of the 1991 deed is outside the jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner because it involves title to real property. Motion at page 5, lines 17-19. However, as Attachment 1 to the Zavhareyev Decl. indicates, the proposed easement was not a proprietary transaction involving city property, but the easement was a part of the review of the SPE for AEB. As the memo states: The proposed easement was reviewed by Planning and Community Development as part of the site plan entitlement (SPE) application submitted by the property owner, listed as Project No. LAND-2013- 00171. Thus, the whole point of the easement granted to AEB was to allow AEB’s project to proceed; indeed, as noted above, the easement from the City to AEB acknowledges the limitations under the 1991 deed. It is concerning that the City is attempting to remove from review significant issues of access, when the City is the key player in granting municipal rights to a private, religious developer. This is particularly so when the easement granted frankly acknowledges the violation of the 1991 Quit Claim Deed. The motion to dismiss should be denied. The Hearing Examiner should hear ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RESPONSE TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS FROM CITY AND AEB - 8 A R A M B U R U & E U S T I S , L L P 720 Third Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel. [PHONE REDACTED] • Fax [PHONE REDACTED] evidence and argument on the propriety of access to the property, an issue expressly related to SPE review. 4.2. ISSUES #2 AND 3: CHALLENGE TO DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING AEB SEATING CAPACITY. Issues 2 and 3 in the appeal concern challenges to decisions related to seating capacity in the proposed building. In Issue 2, the appellant contends that if seating capacity was correctly calculated, then the proposal would require a Type III Conditional Use Permit because the seating capacity would exceed 250. Issue 3 contends that required parking was miscalculated based on the same miscalculation of seating capacity. AEB requests dismissal of these issues because of an alleged failure to file an administrative appeal of an interpretation decision, though that decision is not attached to their motion. This portion of the motion should be denied and these issues continue to the full hearing. First, the Redmond code has specific provisions for the timing and sequencing of permit appeals in RZC 21.76.050.E: 4. Where a development requires more than one land use permit but the applicant elects not to submit all applications for consolidated review, applications may be submitted and processed sequentially, provided that the permit subject to the highest numbered process type must be submitted and obtained first, followed by the other permits in sequence from the highest numbered type to the lowest. A Type II request must be submitted and a decision obtained thereon before the Type I administrative interpretation can be sought. In the present case, the Administrative Interpretation is a Type I decision and the SPE is a Type II. See RZC Table 21.76.050B, Classification of Permits and Decisions. Accordingly, the Type II SPE ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RESPONSE TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS FROM CITY AND AEB - 9 A R A M B U R U & E U S T I S , L L P 720 Third Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel. [PHONE REDACTED] • Fax [PHONE REDACTED] must precede the Type 1 Administrative Interpretation. Second, RZC 21.76.060.D.3 sets requirements for the Type I decisions, including the requirement that: “The decision shall be mailed as provided in RZC 21.76.080.G, Notice of Final Decision.” RZC 21.76.080.G sets forth the requirement for Notices of Final Decisions: G. Notice of Final Decision. The Administrator shall mail the Notice of Final Decision and the final SEPA determination, if any, to all parties of record. The Notice of Decision shall include a statement of any threshold determination made under SEPA and the procedures for administrative appeal, if any. For those project permits subject to SEPA, the Notice of Decision shall contain the requirements set forth in RZC 21.70, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Procedures. The exception shall be for Notice of Decision for Historic Landmark Designations, which shall conform to the notice procedures found in King County Code Chapter 20.62. For Shoreline Substantial Development Permits, Shoreline Conditional Use Permits, and Shoreline Variances, see RZC 21.68.200.C.6.b and 21.68.200.C.6.c. Mr. Zakhareyev was indeed a party of record concerning this application, long before the Administrative Interpretation was issued. Not only did Mr. Zakhareyev not receive a Notice of Final Decision, but, as far as we know, no such notice was issued by the City. See Zakhareyev Decl. Washington courts have held that a decision must include appeal provisions and is not final and not issued unless the city has followed the process in its entirety: … a final land use decision should memorialize the terms of the decision, not simply reference them, in a tangible and accessible way so that a diligent citizen may "know whether the decision is objectionable or, if it is, whether there is a viable basis for a challenge." Durland v. San Juan Cnty., 174 Wn. App. 1, 14, 298 P.3d 757, 763 (2012) (quoting Vogel v. City of Richland, 161 Wn. App. 770, 779-80, 255 P.3d 805 (2011). ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RESPONSE TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS FROM CITY AND AEB - 10 A R A M B U R U & E U S T I S , L L P 720 Third Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel. [PHONE REDACTED] • Fax [PHONE REDACTED] And where a local jurisdiction sets forth a process for making a land use decision, the land use decision is not final unless the jurisdiction has complied with the process and the entire process is complete. Durland (quoting Heller Bldg,, LLC v. City of Bellevue, 147 Wn. App. 46, 55-56, 194 P.3d 264 (2008)). No exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement arises without issuance of a final, appealable order. [20] An agency's letter does not constitute a final order unless the letter clearly fixes a legal relationship as a consummation of the administrative process. [21] The letter must be clearly understandable as a final determination of rights, and doubts as to the finality of such communications must be resolved in favor of the citizen. WCHS, Inc. v. City of 120 Wn.App. 668, 679, 86 P.3d 1169, (2004). The importance of the Notice of Final Decision is that it informs parties of record of “the procedures for administrative appeal.” As noted above, the procedure in the City of Redmond is that Type II decisions are made before Type I decisions, so a Type I decision would not ordinarily be appealable until the Type II decision is made. Without a Notice of Decision, the City and AEB cannot contend that Appellant did not exhaust administrative remedies. The City’s motion to dismiss Issues 2 and 3 should be denied. 4.3 ISSUES 6, 9 AND 10: ADEQUACY OF TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION REVIEW. Issues 6, 9 and 10 raise issues concerning adequacy of traffic impact studies. Issue 6 references traffic studies previously submitted by the applicant. Issue 9 alleges error in the traffic and parking analysis because it did not take into account traffic and parking impacts from the entire building. Similarily, Issue 10 asserts error because traffic analysis assumed there would be no growth in the membership of the AEB. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RESPONSE TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS FROM CITY AND AEB - 11 A R A M B U R U & E U S T I S , L L P 720 Third Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel. [PHONE REDACTED] • Fax [PHONE REDACTED] These issues are fully within the purview of provisions of the RZC. As described above the City has taken specific and special actions to address traffic issues for the AEB project. These include an easement conveyed by the City to AEB for a driveway to the property because, as Recital D in the easement states in regard to the AEB proposal: “Conditions of development for such use requires (sic) a wider driveway than provisions allow.” See Exhibit E to the City motion. Traffic impact analysis is considered under chapter 21.52 of the RZC. A “Transportation Management Program” is required under RZC 21.52.020 and AEB has submitted such a program to the city, accompanied by several traffic studies including JTE Technical Memorandum (July 2012), traffic and parking letter from JTE (May 23, 2013), and JTE Engineering technical comments (June 2014), among others. These reports and studies are incorporated by reference. The decision specifically points out that under RZC 21.08.280 a “traffic mitigation plan is required for a church use and is met by a draft plan submitted.” See Exhibit A to City Motion, page 5, Paragraph 5. In addition, as described above a SPE is intended to determine: “The adequacy of streets and utilities in the area of the subject property to serve the anticipated demand from the proposal” under RZC 21.70.070.1.d. The code also requires consistency with the Redmond Comprehensive Plan under RZC 21.76.070.B.1. , including policies to protect residential neighborhoods such as OV-33 with its requirement to “locate driveways and streets in such a way as to minimize through traffic on primarily residential streets and reduce other adverse impacts on residential neighborhoods.” ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DECLARATION OF EUGENE ZAKHAREYEV IN OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS - 1 A R A M B U R U & E U S T I S , L L P 720 Third Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel. [PHONE REDACTED] • Fax [PHONE REDACTED] BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF REDMOND In the Matter of the Appeal of Eugene Zakhareyev Of the June 12, 2018 approval Site Plan Entitlement LAND-2013- 00171 Decision for the Anjuman-E- Burhani Mosque at 15252 NE 51st Street, Redmond Appeal No. LAND-2018-00701 Of LAND-2013-00171 DECLARATION OF EUGENE ZAKHAREYEV IN OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS I am the appellant in this appeal of a Site Plan Entitlement decision of the city to grant site plan entitlement to Anjuman-E-Burhani. Attachment 1 to this Declaration is a memo from the City of Redmond Mayor to the City Council dated May 1, 2018, discussing the AEB proposal and the potential easement that the City was considering for access to the AEB property. An issue is raised in the AEB Motion to Dismiss regarding an interpretation issued by the City for the calculation of seating capacity in the proposed AEB facility. AEB contends issues 2 and 3 should be dismissed because an Administrative Interpretation was issued on the subject of seating capacity on April 29, 2015, but not ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DECLARATION OF EUGENE ZAKHAREYEV IN OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO DISMISS - 2 A R A M B U R U & E U S T I S , L L P 720 Third Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel. [PHONE REDACTED] • Fax [PHONE REDACTED] appealed. I was party of record at the time the interpretation was allegedly issued (April 29, 2015). However, I never received a copy of a Notice of Final Decision from the City on that interpretation. In addition, I have submitted several public records requests to the City for all documents related to the AEB SPE application, but no Notice of Final Decision for the Administrative Interpretation has ever been provided. I am over the age of 18 years, competent to testify, and make this statement from personal knowledge. I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Dated this day of August, 2018. Eugene Zakhareyev, Appellant See next page for signature ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 1 Attachment 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- AM No. 18-081 MEMO TO: Members of the City Council FROM: Mayor John Marchione DATE: May 1, 2018 SUBJECT: Approval to Convey an Access Easement to the Anjuman-E-Burhani Property, 15250 NE 51st Street (King County Tax Parcels [PHONE REDACTED] and [PHONE REDACTED]) I. RECOMMENDED ACTION ..recommendation Authorize the Mayor to grant an easement to increase the access width from the Anjuman-E-Burhani property to NE 51st Street from 14- to 20-feet, subject to paying the City $67,000 for the value of the easement (see attachments A: Draft Easement Document and B: Property Location). ..body II. DEPARTMENT CONTACTS Malisa Files, Finance Director [PHONE REDACTED] Terry Marpert, AICP, Finance-Real Property [PHONE REDACTED] III. DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND Anjuman-E-Burhani, site plan entitlement applicant, seeks City approval to build a mosque, changing the land use on the applicant’s property from a single-family residential to a religious institution use. For safety reasons, the new use is required to have access to NE 51st Street that is 20-feet wide; six feet more than the existing 14-foot wide access. The proposed easement was reviewed by Planning and Community Development as part of the site plan entitlement (SPE) application submitted by the property owner, listed as Project No. LAND-2013-00171. The area of NE 51st Street adjacent to the applicant’s property was acquired by the City in 1991 through a quitclaim deed from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). A condition of the quitclaim deed is that the City “will maintain the control of ingress and egress to, from and between the lands herein conveyed and the lands adjacent thereto…” While WSDOT no longer owns the property, the terms of the quitclaim deed require the City to follow WSDOT design criteria when considering proposals to widen access from adjacent properties to the City-owned section of NE 51st Street. (WSDOT letter, August 24, 2012). ---PAGE BREAK--- Consistent with WSDOT requirements, the following conditions shall apply to the proposed access easement: Compliance with WSDOT’s Design Manual, Chapter 530, Subsection 530.10 (July 2016); Restriction of access at NE 51st Street to right-in/right-out; Sight distance standards shall be met where the access connects to NE 51st Street; Any channelization changes extending into WSDOT right-of-way shall be approved by WSDOT; and The owner of the Anjuman-E-Burhani property shall pay $67,000 to the City of Redmond as compensation for the easement based on a third-party valuation of the easement. IV. PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS HELD Date Action / Committee Presentation April 10, 2018 Planning and Public Works Committee of the Whole V. IMPACT A. Service/Delivery: The easement will allow access to NE 51st Street from the Anjuman-E-Burhani property to increase by six feet, from 14- to 20-feet wide. This is the width necessary to provide safe access to a religious institution use. B. Fiscal Note: There are no costs involved with conveying this easement. The City will receive $67,000 in compensation for the easement as mentioned above. VI. ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION The City Council could choose not to approve this easement. This would prevent the access width necessary to safely connect the Anjuman-E-Burhani Property to NE 51st Street. VII. TIME CONSTRAINTS A delay in approving the access easement would delay approval of the SPE for the Anjuman-E-Burhani property. ---PAGE BREAK--- VIII. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft Easement Document Attachment B: Property Location Malisa Files, Finance Director Approved for Agenda John Marchione, Mayor