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