06 ATTACHMENT 6 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Nagler: The straw poll. This conversation has been so difficult that it's gone on for so long that I'm not convinced, I'm sorry to say, that today is the day it ought to get solved when the property is in escrow to be sold and there's a chance that it's less about the actual number of days an outside party could use the backyard or...it may be less about that than there is clearly absolutely no trust between the two parties to this conversation. And it could be that a conversation between the Millers and other neighbors and Chabad, just because there's no reason to distrust one another, could achieve a different result. And I do believe just to say directly, I do believe that if we were to continue this conversation which is a totally reasonable way to approach it, that we would be establishing parameters for a conversation that ought to occur privately and not have the size of the sandbox that binds the public if it's possible. And in the end, it may not be possible. But if we were to proceed and sort of ordain in what the new use permit ought to look like, assuming we would adopt a different use permit, believe then we would be setting —I'm not sure what it would be— either the minimum or the maximum for the results of the conversation between the new owner and the neighbors. And I just don't know that that's fair to their conversation or productive, nor get them to adopt them or not. Put it differently, I believe what we would be doing is imposing the unfortunate dynamic of a many year conversation to two new parties because we're trying to respond to some arbitrated settlement between various ideas and options and discussions that have been going on for years as opposed to a straight up new conversation and I don't know that the new owner ought to be either aided or sidled by, depending upon one's point of view, us taking action today after all these years. Commissioner O'Connor: I'd like to comment on that. So first of all, if there was a new buyer, that's going to be a new CUP. This one's not going to pertain to the new buyer. But given that, after nine years these two parties have not been able to agree and think turning them away tonight to go away and work this out themselves is the wrong thing to do. The last time we did that it took us too many years to get back here. They're looking for an answer tonight. Chair Ritter: Weren't you here nine years ago? Commissioner O'Connor: So the first private residence dispute visit to a home I had was to the Millers about 10 years ago. But aside from that, right or wrong, I think it's our job to finally decide something that they can't decide between themselves. The escrow —I don't know if staff knows it's been in escrow, but it could have been in or out of escrow with Chabad for quite some time. I'm not sure it's ever going to close. It could close next week. It could close in five years. It could be a different buyer, so I don't think we should kick the can down the road. I really do think we should come to finality here and then if it does sell and there's a new user coming in, then it's a whole new ball game we do again. Commissioner Nagler: I appreciate that. Just to be clear, I am absolutely not suggesting that these parties try and go figure it out. I'm clearly not suggesting that. What I was suggesting is that discussion is about to occur between two new parties, one being sort of the Millers.... EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 22, 2016 Page 27 of 52