SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

a PUD without a Vesting Tentative Map can be changed by ordinance at any time as there really is no vesting; it can go through the entire process again, have hearings at the Planning Commission and the City Council, and change it. He indicated that the only other way to have a vested right is either if a building permit has been issued or if there is active building in progress. Chair Blank inquired if he understands correctly that someone going through the process of the PUD approvals but has not signed a Development Agreement or has not pulled building permits has no vested rights. Mr. Dolan replied that was correct. Chair Blank further clarified his understanding that Measure PP would undo any rights to development that might be in existence for those PUDs. Mr. Dolan said that was correct. He added that staff is not aware of any rights to development and is more concerned about the implications to Specific Plan language, public dialogue, and intent of the City in past discussions. He stated that the Bypass Road was a critical part of the discussion on the golf course and was then memorialized in the Specific Plan; Measure PP would undo that. He continued that the connection to Lund Ranch from Sycamore Creek Way as one of possible connections to Lund Ranch, which is very clearly spelled out in that particular Specific Plan will also be undone. He pointed out, however, that this is not an issue of a vested right but more an issue of kind of a promise in the Plan that was made to the community. Chair Blank inquired what would happen, hypothetically, if Measure PP were approved in a constructionist's view, but then later down the road, the City, through its normal processes, chose to change the definition of"structure" in its Municipal Code to exclude roads. Mr. Dolan replied that he could not think of a particular impact of that. He added that he was sure that the definition of"structure" would have to be changed to implement Measure PP without considering road a structure, because the language of Measure PP does not reference that section of the Municipal Code. Chair Blank stated that he was just trying to draw the logic link that if"structure" refers to the definition of"structure" in the Municipal Code, which would appear to be anything built on the ground, and if that linkage is not there and the definition is changed, therefore, it takes away the controversy. He added that there may be other controversies, and maybe that is not the right way to approach it, but he was just wondering why wh that was not considered. Mr. Dolan replied that could be done. He stated that staff talked about that as a possibility but that staff did not feel it was necessary to consider that at this point. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 13, 2013 Page 9 of 35