Committee Report CR-2
The Ordinance Committee held a public hearing on November 12, 2014 beginning at 5:36 P.M. in the Attles Meeting Room, 459 Broadway.
The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the zoning petition filed by Charles D. Teague, et al. to amend the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance to clarify the existing ordinance so that said ordinance can be enforced: to (1) align the zoning amendment expiration date in the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance to be the same as state law; (2) align the Special Permit criteria with adjudicated state law; and (3) require that the master plan be followed whereas following the master plan is optional under state law.
Present at the hearing were Vice Mayor Dennis A. Benzan and Councillor Dennis J. Carlone, Co-Chairs of the Committee, Councillor Craig Kelley, Councillor Nadeem A. Mazen, Councillor Marc C. McGovern, Jeff Roberts, Land Use and Zoning Project Planner, CDD, Nancy E. Glowa, City Solicitor and City Clerk Donna P. Lopez.
Also present were Charles Teague, 23 Edmunds Street, Alison Field-Juma, 363 Concord Avenue, John Hawkinson, 84 Mass. Avenue, Kenneth Taylor, 23 Berkeley Street, Ilan Levy, 148 Spring Street, Carolyn Shipley, 15 Laurel Street and Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street.
Vice Mayor Benzan convened the hearing and explained the purpose. He stated that the meeting is being recorded with audio and visual devices. The format will be that the petitioner will make a presentation followed by comments from City staff, the City Council and then public comment.
. He stated that the petition is trying to eliminate confusion and that there are three timely parts to the petition as follows (1) to align the zoning amendment expiration date in the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance to be the same as state law; (2) to align the Special Permit criteria with adjudicated state law; and, (3) to require that the master plan be followed whereas following the master plan is optional under state law.
Mr. Teague stated that the municipal law should comply with state law with respect to the expiration date on a petition for a zoning amendment. He stated that the public should understand the law. State law provides that a petition for a zoning amendment expires 90 days after the City Council hearing on the petition; however, the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance provides that a petition for a zoning amendment expires 90 days after the Planning Board hearing. He distributed an opinion from the City Solicitor regarding the expiration date
Mr. Teague stated that the language in the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance states that special permits "will normally" be granted. He stated that in Section 9 of Chapter 40A the word used is "may." He noted that according to Councillor Carlone, the Planning Board is never obligated to grant a special permit because a check list has been satisfied. Mr. Teague stated that he has an independent legal opinion and neither is right
Using the word "obligated" makes it appear that the Planning Board has more discretion than it has. He stated that special permits should be granted when the criteria is met. He stated that this should be well understood and suggested that the City Council could seek an independent legal opinion. The Planning Board has broad discretion to grant or deny a special permit. The zoning ordinance language is too broad. The recommendation from the independent legal opinion is that more work is needed on the zoning ordinance. This should be a high priority. It looks like the municipal law is giving an additional advantage to the proponent. The standard should be changed. The policy should be clear because the City Council controls the zoning.
Mr. Teague stated that all permits, including, but not limited to, Building Permits, Special Permits, and Variances should comply with the Master Plan for the City of Cambridge as specified in Chapter 41, Section 81D. He stated that in Massachusetts development does not have to comply with a master plan. You are required by state law to have a master plan but are not required to follow it. It is common sense to follow a master plan. The state law is silent on compliance. The City has an opportunity to do something. Zoning analysis is deferred to Community Development for signs, affordable housing and green buildings. The master plan would be added. The unattended consequence is that a variance can always be sought. He stated that the Concord Alewife Plan (CAP) started in 2004 with a twenty year building out. We are half way there. In Alewife 125% of the area has been built out in 1/2 the time. He stated that it is time to look at the goals and the infrastructure. He stated that in 2014 planning is not being taken seriously. The Concord Alewife Plan (CAP) is going on now and the infrastructure is not in the zoning. He asked how can you have a plan and not protect the land? He stated that the developers have failed the public. He had a clip of the October 28
He did not see changing the expiration date as a problem. It would end the confusion and would be helpful to the public.
From a practical standpoint changing the text in the general special permit criteria area may not seem like a very significant change, but the special permit is a tool that the City has. There is some discretion, but it is not limitless discretion. The Zoning Ordinance establishes what can be granted by a special permit and the reason for granting a special permit. Special permits have to be decided within a specified time period. If not acted upon with the time frame special permits may be constructively granted. The permit granting authority must provide a written decision granting or denying the Special Permit. Clarity is very important for special permits in the zoning ordinance. Changing the text from "will normally be granted" to "may be granted" may not provide any more clarity. He stated that if the City Council wanted to create a clearer set of guidelines for the permit granting authority in granting special permits there are ways that it could be clearer.
The Master Plan is a guidance document. In Cambridge it is composed of a set of documents including the growth policy document, city wide rezoning completed in 2001, ECAP and Concord Alewife studies as well as various other studies conducted for a particular area or topic formed for zoning changes or guidelines for development. These documents are referenced in the ordinance for special permits that are reviewed pursuant to section 19.30. All special permits are reviewed pursuant to 19.30, the City urban design objectives and guidelines, created in 2001. Any special permit is reviewed under the urban design objectives. The Master plan would be incorporated either implicitly or referenced explicitly in the review of special permits. This would be incorporated when completed. Building permits are not a discretionary review; they are an administrative review. It would be difficult if reviewing a building permit to verify that it meets all the zoning requirements it would then be a challenge to say that a discretionary finding would have to be made on whether it is in compliance with the Master Plan. Variances operate under a different set of standards from special permits. Variances are for exceptional things and a case needs to be made that the normal rules should be waived. The Board Zoning Appeals grants variances. It may not be appropriate to require the BZA to consider whether planning objectives are being met in reviewing a variance or imposing a condition on a variance. It may not be appropriate to require that every variance has to conform to a larger plan.
Councillor McGovern stated that the expiration date amendment is clear. This should be done and he has no issue with this amendment. He feels differently about the Master Plan. He stated that he cannot vote on the Master Plan when he has not even seen the recommendations. He does not support the amendment regarding the Master Plan. He stated that he is confused by the proposed special permit amendment. He stated that there is a lot of confusion about what the legal responsibility is. He asked what the legal opinion of the City is when it comes to granting special permits? If the criterion is met is there an obligation or is there more discretion? City Solicitor Nancy Glowa stated that the City Solicitor's Office has provided advice in the past that changing the expiration date in the Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with state law would be a good idea. Attorney Glowa clarified that the City of Cambridge's Planning Board was established pursuant to Chapter 41 Sections 70-72, not pursuant to Chapter 41 Section 81. There have been discussions at various meetings about whether the City is required to have a Master Plan. She stated that the City is not required to have a Master Plan. The Planning Board is required to look at and review various issues with regard to planning in the City. It has been the opinion of the City Solicitor's Office that the various studies referenced by Mr. Roberts comply with the statutory requirement. Building permits are governed by state law. Changing requirements with respect to variances could be problematic. She could provide advice to the City Council if this were their wish. Attorney Glowa stated that with respect to special permits there is some confusion about how the law operates. In her opinion the change proposed would add further confusion and not be of assistance because the language in Chapter 40A Section 9 which governs what municipalities are allowed to do, such as in our zoning ordinance, is clear that the word "only" is significant in that the statute suggests that special permits may "only" be granted if X, Y, and Z criteria are met. There is a fairly significant body of case law that has developed that confirms that if there are clear criteria set forth in the ordinance and a board that is authorized to consider and act upon a special permit had a flimsy or insufficient reason for denying a special permit or was arbitrary or capricious, the courts have overturned those decisions. There is not broad discretion to deny a special permit if the applicant has shown that the applicant meets the criteria. She agrees that there is some language that is broad and possibly not completely articulated such as how one would meet the criteria regarding the effect on a neighborhood. She stated that with respect to the specific criteria in the ordinance where an applicant demonstrates that it has met the criteria and the Planning Board denies the special permit, courts have generally overturned such denials. She noted that rarely have courts overturned grants of special permits that comply with the special permit criteria.
Councillor McGovern spoke about the perceived direction being given to Planning Board. As currently worded this sends a message the special permits will always be approved. The word "may" adds balance. How would this change impact the Planning Board? Mr. Roberts stated that the Planning Board hearing is November 18th. Councillor McGovern stated that he would be interested to hear from the Planning Board the impact this would have on their work. He asked if the items could be separated. Vice Mayor Benzan noted that this came in as one petition.
Councillor Carlone stated that there are many good things in the petition. He stated that all who have spoken agree on the expiration date being consistent with the state law. On the special permits he appreciates the goal amending the Special Permit. Some of the new development construction seems out of place. This section does have merit. The City Council needs to establish clear guidelines and work with the Community Development on this. Conformance with the Master Plan he agrees with as an urban designer in principle. The comprehensive plan could be incorporated explicitly into decision making; does this include special permit criteria?
Mr. Roberts stated that any new plan would be referenced in the zoning ordinance. The issue here is that there is an implication that there is a document entitled Master Plan and it may be produced at the end of the process, but it does not make specific reference to any document currently published. Councillor Carlone stated that not every study was read by the City Council. Zoning comes from Community Development and it is upon the recommendation from Community Development that these studies are referenced in the zoning. Mr. Roberts stated that a planning study is created when there is a zoning proposal and they are cross referenced and that the plan and the zoning are consistent. Councillor Carlone stated that a comprehensive plan could follow a similar path. Mr. Roberts agreed. Councillor Carlone stated that his goal would be that a comprehensive plan be incorporated into the zoning. He stated that it is the City Council responsible to update Section 19.30, the urban design criteria, if the City Council is unhappy with the results. He disagrees with variances not complying with a plan. Legal variances will be rare. Variances are not a dominant thing. This would give more clarity where a variance makes sense. It would be crazy to do a comprehensive plan if it is not incorporated. The spirit of the plan should be followed or there is no reason for planning.
Councillor Mazen explained that he is trying to understand how well intentioned people arrive at a poor building. How can the Planning Board say no to a bad building when the zoning code is silent? Mr. Roberts asked what is defined as a bad building. If clearer standards could be established it would make it easier to define what is the right building for Cambridge. Standards are met with the design guidelines and whether they should be changed will be discussed in the city wide planning process. Attorney Glowa stated that the idea of what a "bad building" is supposed to be generated by the City Council, and it is within the purview of the City Council to make amendments to the zoning ordinance so that the criteria is clearly set forth as to the height of the building or other dimensional requirements. The design guidelines that Mr. Roberts referred to are also there to advise applicants as to those kinds of criteria. If part of the objection is that development has occurred faster than anticipated, these are the types of situations where the City Council can ratchet these provisions back and change the standards that will be applied. Councillor Mazen stated that hearing that the City Council has to rein things in at this point is a non solution for the City Council. He spoke about bad buildings in that infrastructure will be precluded because of development is what is being heard as a bad building. He spoke about empowering the Planning Board to protect the vision of the City. How do we empower the Planning Board to have the vision and be empowered under the zoning ordinance to make smaller moves? Mr. Roberts stated that the Planning Board, as special permit granting authority, has the ability to grant or deny special permits and to impose conditions on special permits. There was an overall strategy in CAP in which the infrastructure should be developed and that rights of ways should be protected in coordination with development. This has guided the Planning Board for review of projects. Significant efforts have been made to protect the key rights of way that have been identified in the CAP. This has been the case. The area has been protected for the pedestrian-bike bridge and the pedestrian-bike routes have been established. There is always room for improvement. If the special permits are denied, we cannot expect the rights of ways to be protected and to have the other benefits that are anticipated in the plan. There is always a balance to be achieved with the zoning and the public benefits. Clearer guidance is needed.
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Community Development Department to provide a model of how to structure zoning ordinance changes with a view towards guiding the Planning Board in terms of content and format.
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Law Department to clarify the discretion of the Planning Board as it relates to special permits and whether the use of the word "may" in the special permit provision is legally non viable.
Councillor Carlone informed the committee that in San Francisco they approved only a certain amount of development each year with strict guideline and strong design review. The end results were the best projects got approved. It raised the quality of what got built.
Councillor Kelley stated that his interpretation is that the form selected for the Planning Board under state law does not require more in terms of a Master Plan legally than what Cambridge currently has. Attorney Glowa stated this is correct. She stated that Section 2.68.010 of Chapter 2.68 of the municipal code states that the Planning Board of the City is established under the provisions of the MGL Chapter 41 Sections 70-72. She further stated that under Chapter 41 Sections 70-72 the only requirement for planning functions is that the Planning Board shall make careful studies of the resources, possibilities and needs of the town in particular with respect to conditions injurious to the public health or otherwise in or about rented dwellings and make plans for the development of the municipality with special reference to proper housing for the inhabitants. She stated that there is a requirement for an annual report that the Planning Board must provide to the City Council giving information about the condition of the town, plans or proposals for its development and relevant estimates of the cost thereof. Section 72 provides that cities and towns may have ordinances and by-laws for carrying out the purposes of these sections. It is more bare bones than the Master Planning requirements set forth in Chapter 41 Section 81 and thereafter.
Councillor Kelley stated that he did not have a problem with the word "may"; he does not think it will make any difference. He supported changing the expiration date. He stated that telling ourselves now that we will be bound to a Master Plan that we have not seen yet is problematic. He stated that zoning petitions are submitted to fit some unknown thing. It is difficult to figure out what the future will be and stick to the path. When we have a Master Plan it will be a guiding document and the zoning ordinance is a guiding document. The special permit criteria could be solved by the City Council. The Planning Board makes projects smaller before they get approved. He stated that thinking that the zoning problems of the City Council are going to be solved by the Planning Board is not a reasonable expectation.
Councillor Carlone stated that the state requires a Master Plan in general. Attorney Glowa stated that there are two different types of Planning Boards in Massachusetts under state law. One of them is that type that the City of Cambridge adopted a long time ago. This section of the statute was subsequently expanded, so that municipalities that had not adopted that type of Planning Board before the 1920's could no long adopt that type of Planning Board. Thereafter municipalities would form a Planning Board under a subsequent section of that statute. Many municipalities have Planning Boards under the subsequent section of the statute. Both are provided for under state law. Cambridge adopted the earlier law. Councillor Carlone asked if the City Council could change this. Attorney Glowa responded in the affirmative. Councillor Carlone stated that a comprehensive plan changes over time; it evolves. He felt that up zoning is spot zoning and this practices needs to stop. The City Council does not show a full building and does not understand the implication of the zoning. This needs to be changed. The general public does not understand zoning and this sets up distrust and shock. He wanted to know what the zoning change would mean in the future will prevent problems.
Vice Mayor Benzan stated that the zoning needs to be reviewed and changed. He stated that a better job needs to be done to create 3D models to show the change. There is a lot of work to be done. He stated that a lot the dissatisfaction expressed by the residents is due to the fact that the development was not thought thru over that last 10-15 years and now we are seeing the effects. He commented that there is agreement on the expiration date change and the special permit provision. He does not see the difference between "will normally" or "may". He stated that Chapter 41 Section 81D is what the petition is trying to amend but we should be talking about Chapter 41 Sections 70-72. Attorney Glowa stated that Chapter 41 Section 81D is not binding on Cambridge because the Planning Board is established pursuant to Chapter 41, section 71-72. She stated that she is not saying that the City cannot have a Master Plan or that it could not be incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance but that Chapter 41, Section 81 D is not binding on the City. Vice Mayor Benzan stated that referring to a Master Plan when there is no Master Plan before us is difficult. He stated that he is not prepared to vote on the Master Plan. This may need to be revisited. He did agree in general that any special permits or variances should be consistent with the overall vision for the city. This is the part that is causing so many problems.
Councillor McGovern stated that whether Part Three, the Master Plan, is required or not, it was voted on to have a Master plan and when finalized the City Council will review and debate it and put it into the zoning what the final document will be. He made a comparison with the C2 plan that took eighteen months. He stated that if before that plan was finished we moved the recommendations before we saw them supporters of Part Three would be upset because they did not like what C2 recommended. He stated that it is not good government to accept something sight unseen. Eventually the City Council will vote to accept the Master plan in some way but to vote without seeing a Master plan makes no sense. The Planning Board has a role on commenting on the look of a building and the materials used and they need to take this on because they are the experts. Councillor McGovern asked what could be done procedurally on this petition because there are three different recommendations.
Alison Field-Juma, 363 Concord Avenue, stated that the she lived in Concord Alewife area and was involved with the 2004 and now reengaging with the community ten years later she understands the shock. She stated that the special permit criteria should reflect the planning. She stated that this is the essence of the problem. People feel that they were sold a bill of goods. The Planning Board may be in a rock and hard place because they do not have the criteria they need to make decisions that will be upheld. The plans need to be reflected in the special permit criteria is crucial. There will be many changes in the next few years and special permits will be granted and huge structures will be built. What happens between now and then with the Master plan? The special permit criteria should be in the planning document now or as soon as possible. She supported the petition submitted. The planning process cannot be divorced from the rules of the game.
Kenneth Taylor, 23 Berkeley Street, stated that as an architect and an urban planner his level of discovery is high. He stated that his conclusions from this meeting are that the City has a Master plan and documents by the state are defined as a Master plan, but none are referenced in the zoning ordinances. By the definition that has been offered by the City Council none of the current Master plan has any standing as it relates to the Planning Board reviewing special permits. He noted that the Chapter 41, Sections 72-73 is the provision under which the Planning Board is operating. He asked if the Planning Board is doing what the state law states including planning. He asked should the City Council, given the disparities showed, be looking at the current Master plan documents which have no standing and incorporate them into the zoning ordinance now rather than waiting. There is a high level of skepticism amount the community about a protracted Master plan study which may not have any enforceability. If the Planning Board can only approve special permits based on the special permit criteria how can the Planning Board comment on design. He stated that there is nothing in the special permit criteria about design. He stated that if the City Council wanted the Planning Board to comment on design in the special permits then the ordinance should be changed to be clear on this. He stated that he is not sure that the Planning Board is the body to make these judgments. If the City Council is right the Planning Board cannot deny special permits if the criterion is met.
Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street, stated that her neighbors gave months to the ECAP process, and then the developers wanted changes to benefit themselves. Everyone gave up something, but one group gets to come back and change their minds. This is why people think that the process is corrupt. The sign ordinance is another example. Mr. Hugh Russell, Chair of the Planning Board, gave a history of the sign ordinance and what it is all about and this is not borne out in variance proceedings. She stated that Part 3 is problematic but comes from citizen's frustration. The City Council needs to address how people feel when they participate and help to make compromises that it is not all given away. She stated that her suggestion is that at the very least that any Planning Board or Board of Zoning Appeal decision needs to take the Master plan into account explicitly. A Master plan does not deviate from the spirit of the zoning. She asked what Cambridge is for. Cambridge should be a place to create a community and a place to make people want to participate in meetings and their governance and makes it possible to do this.
Ilan Levy, 148 Spring Street, stated that it is important that Part Two be considered because these are the reason for the Planning Board decisions. He stated "may" is clearer for the Planning Board for considering the public interest. He stated that the public interest was not considered for the court house. It is time for the City Council to take on this responsibility. He stated that the Carlone petition was an opportunity for the City Council to take on this responsibility. As for Part 3 there are diverse master plans for neighborhoods that are not taken into consideration. He stated that the Volpe site will kill East Cambridge because this is a huge area of land with a massive amount of development. In order to minimize the impact of this the City Council needs to do something and the Teague petition is an interim step between now and the Master plan.
Carolyn Shipley, 15 Laurel Street, stated that the amendments in the Teague petition are necessary and crucial to ensure that the City of Cambridge operates in a democratic manner and that the quality of life of Cambridge residents is not further destroyed. They give the taxpayers and residents a tool to ensure that the City is not turned into a downtown Manhattan. She stated that there seems to be a problem with the Master plan. It is jarring to her to see some of the buildings that have been approved. She commented that the European cities are relaxing and this is because Europeans have standards to keep their buildings charming and ascetic and they enforce the standards. Standards could equate a Master plan. Cambridge has no standards and we need a Master plan but it will not be enforceable. Standards are needed that are enforced. She urged approval of the petition and it ensures that residents are listened to. If the changes are incorporated into the zoning ordinance maybe the Planning Board will not continue its current practice of approving all special permits.
Vice Mayor Benzan asked Mr. Roberts to address Mr. Taylor's comments. Mr. Roberts stated that plans that the City has established, both City-wide and for areas are referenced in the zoning ordinance. They are referenced in many cases explicitly and in some instances implicitly by making general reference to City plans established for an area. The plans are referenced generally in the City-wide urban design objectives which apply to all special permits and specifically to unique special permits that apply to specific areas. The Planning Board does engage in planning with Community Development Department. He stated that the special permit granting authority has eclipsed the time spent on this work and planning activities. He stated that the design guidelines are included in the special permit criteria.
Councillor McGovern stated that he wanted clarity about the procedure. Vice Mayor Benzan stated that there could be three recommendations or keep any matters in committee. Councillor McGovern moved that Part I, the expiration date, be referred to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation, Part Three, the Master plan be referred with a negative recommendation and Part Two, the special permit amendment be held until the information is received. Councillor Mazen requested to amend the motion to refer Part Two with no recommendation.
Councillor Carlone stated that one way to move on Part Three is to say that once approved by the City Council the comprehensive plan would be incorporated. The City Council would have to officially incorporate the comprehensive plan as part of zoning. Councillor McGovern asked if there is a way to bring forward through a Policy Order to work out the wording of the Master Plan. He stated that he intends to vote for the Master Plan, but it needs more work.
Vice Mayor Benzan asked the City Solicitor to explain whether the petition is requesting an amendment to Chapter 41 Section 81D which is not followed in Cambridge. Vice Mayor Benzan stated that a part of the petition is being referred to which is not followed. Attorney Glowa stated that the petition is asking for a new section that all permits, including but not limited to special permits, building permits and variances shall comply with the Master plan for the City of Cambridge as specified in Chapter 41, Section 81D. This does not state that Cambridge is bound by Chapter 41, Section 81D. She stated that there are still questions about building permits and variances. Cambridge is not currently subject to Chapter 41, Section 81D. Vice Mayor Benzan stated that the petition does not contain any reference to Chapter 41, Sections 70-72; why is this not referenced, Attorney Glowa stated that the Cambridge created a Planning Board pursuant to Chapter 41, Sections 70-72 therefore the provisions of Chapter 41, Section 81D are not binding upon the City. She is not sure whether the City could not voluntarily adopt a provision in our zoning ordinance that states that all these various permits will comply with the Master plan as set forth in Chapter 41 Section 81D. She explained that she had to look at this more closely but does not see that the City is bound by Section 81D. Vice Mayor Benzan stated that the there would have to be an amendment to the zoning ordinances to accept this language and then incorporate the petitioners language. Attorney Glowa stated that she would be happy to provide clarification to this issue. She is unsure whether the City would need to change the type of Planning Board as established. It may be possible that the City will enact this provision if the City Council wanted to do this to have the Master plan consistent with the provisions of Chapter 41, Section 81D that would be incorporated into the zoning ordinance.
Councillor Kelley commented that the zoning is changed frequently. Sometimes the changes are liked other times they are not. This is surprisingly flexible; disappointingly flexible.
Councillor McGovern stated that the Ordinance Committee is a committee of the whole which usually only has four or five members that attend hearings. These are important decisions and discussions that need to be made with the full City Council and if the way to have these discussions is to move this forward to the full City Council to have the discussions he is for forwarding to the full City Council.
Vice Mayor Benzan cited his concern on whether City staff would be able to provide the information requested by the next City Council meeting. Councillor McGovern stated that the City Council could await the information and then take up the matter. Vice Mayor Benzan asked what the rush is. This should remain in committee. Another hearing could be held. He stated that he is not in favor of referring a matter to the full City Council without all the information. More information is need on Part Two and much more information is needed on Part Three.
Councillor Mazen explained why he did not support keeping the petition in committee. He wanted to keep the momentum moving forward with more information in front of the full City Council.
Councillor Carlone commented that the Planning Board has not held their hearing on this petition yet. Their review may shed some light on the issues. He commented that the Part Two amendment reads that special permits may be granted. It provides clarity.
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to direct the Community Development Department to provide a model of how to structure zoning ordinance changes with a view towards guiding the Planning Board in terms of content and format.
ORDERED: That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to instruct the Law Department to clarify the discretion of the Planning Board as it relates to special permits and whether the use of the word "may" in the special permit provision is legally non viable.
Vice Mayor Benzan moved that that Part One of the Teague petition, the expiration date, be referred to the City Council with a favorable recommendation.
Vice Mayor Benzan now moved that Part Two of the Teague petition, the special permit amendment, be referred to the full City Council without a recommendation.
Vice Mayor Benzan moved that Part Three of the Teague petition, the Master plan, be referred to the full City Council with a negative recommendation.