Good evening everyone. Just going to give a second for Chelsea Cable to start. And great. So um just to remind everybody this is a subcommittee meeting on conference. So it is different from our regular meeting
that we hold here. Um so this is just like one of the meetings that we would have in the other room but because we expected folks to to join us today we wanted to make sure that we had enough room. So we're having it here. Um there is no public comment uh tonight because it's a subcommittee. Um there will be public comment at our next council
meeting next week. And the other thing I just want to mention, I saw a flyer that was going around uh saying that there was a meeting tonight at 7, a general meeting. I just want to clarify there is no 7 p.m. meeting tonight. Uh the the council alternates weeks. We had one last week and we have one next week. Um
thank you so much. With that, I will let the clerk call the role of meeting. >> Council Taylor >> here. >> Councelor Cooper. >> Councelor Jimenez Rivera >> present. >> Councelor Hutton >> present. >> Councelor Tener Garcia >> present. Council Aesh. Councelor Kelly
Garcia. Council Tesh present. Councelor Kelly Garcia is absent. Councilor Sandigette >> present. >> Council De Jesus >> present. >> Council Brown >> here. >> And council Robinson >> here. >> 10 members present. You have a quum. >> Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Uh, also really
quickly just to announce interpretation. microphone headset. Uh okay. Um with that uh we are here to discuss the inclusionary zoning propos uh changes the proposal for changes to the inclusionary zoning ordinance. Uh so
with that I will pass it to the city manager um for the presentation on the changes that are being proposed. >> Thank you city councilors. Um and thank you for hosting this conversation. Uh thank you for having it in this room. Thank you for making this me this
meeting televised. Um and and and thank you for for all all of the community that is interested in this conversation, right? Uh um we know that this is a complicated conversation. We know that this is this is um a very sensitive
conversation, right? But uh um as as they say uh drastic times call for drastic measures and and I'm hoping that this is what this is what we uh um you know we we we leave leave with. I'm going to do a presentation for the for the city council. Um I did a Facebook
live earlier today that had a shortened version of the presentation. So some of this information that I'm going to share uh is is already in the public realm. Um uh I um we issued a press release and that press release included a copy of
this presentation. So so I I am obviously along with with everything else uh uh very happy to to continue this conversation in in many rooms uh and I know that this council is committed uh to that that transparency. So, one question that that I keep
hearing online uh is why now, right? Like what is causing us to make this change now? And and I will say to this council and I will say to everyone in the community is that I feel like we are at a crossroads. We are at a crossroads
at this time with regards to our municipal budget. And Chelsea is not unique. We I I I did a budget meeting last week where I shared basically that that while we have a generous amount of reserves, it is something that
we cannot live on for for a a long amount of time, right? So, so we have free cash, we do have reserves. It it is it is healthy enough to see us through a little bit, but it is not something that we can live off. Uh what we are seeing is our neighbors uh in Maldin uh having
to go to their their tax voters, their voters uh and I'm sorry, their taxpayers uh and ask for an override, right? That they they are Malden is the first community gateway community in in the history of Massachusetts to request such
an override. We will see what happens. We we will see what happens. first gateway community, first gateway community that uh that that is going to have a uh an override vote uh um on Wednesday, right? We are watching that intently. So, and then we heard a lot uh
we we heard a lot during the school budget process, right? That the city has to step it up. The city has to provide more funding uh and and the city did. The city increased the uh contribution uh to a record level. we we increased
the contribution to $9 million over uh the minimum the minimum required by by the state. Right? So we are $9 million over the minimum. That is a number that Chelsea has never done before. So when when we ask the question of why why now it it is for that reason. So I I I want
to show you um maybe I need some help. >> And Mr. manager. I just real quick uh I have just a quick announcement for folks. I just want to remind folks this is the first but will not be the last conversation on this and then really
quickly uh councelor Kelly Garcia is not with us today because she's out of state for a work event and I will need to leave shortly after 7 if this meeting goes on that long. Just so folks uh know. Thank you. >> Absolutely. Um so I I'll I'll run quickly through the agenda. Uh we again
are are going to talk about why why we need new growth. Uh, I'm going to present some housing data for Chelsea. I'm going to talk about affordable housing in Chelsea. And then I'm going to show uh uh data from our our two neighbors, Ravier and Everett. And then uh uh finally, I I hope to make the link
and and convince this council and convince the entire community that new growth is good for everybody. New growth allows us to to continue supporting uh all of our residents. So So this is this is the message that I'm bringing before this council today, right? And this is the message that I'm bringing before the
entire community. We have to balance growth and affordability, right? It is it is something that that needs to be a balanced approach as a community and and it is something that that I urge this council I urge this community to to uh really focus on. And what I'm saying is
we got to balance the long-term financial health of the city while also supporting existing residents with affordable housing. We got to do both, right? So just uh uh touching touching on on on why now, right? Why do we need
new growth, right? Uh uh Proposition 2 and a half in Massachusetts limits our are our the amount that we can raise taxes by 2 and a.5%. In Chelsea, that means $2 million a year, right? So So our budget can only fund $2 million a year. I just said earlier that we gave
the school department an extra $2 million. Guess what? All of our money is gone. Right? Right. So, so any new firefighters that we want to fund, any any new programs that we want to fund, we don't have the ability to do it if we don't focus on new growth, right? And and this is uh uh a snapshot from our uh
financial forecast, something that we share with with the city council and and our community uh uh and we shared at the last budget meeting. What it shows is that FY26 uh had a new growth of $1 million. We uh uh expect we are projecting FY27 to have
$1 million, but that that obviously is is going to be uh in question. I I talked about how um in the last three years, the city has increased our contribution to the school department by by $6 million. Right? In the last three years, the city has increased our
contribution by la by $6 million. So essentially every penny that that we are getting from from proposition 2 and a half is going to our school department. Right? So so this is again why why uh we are having this conversation today. You've seen this chart many time. I I
feel like now I I I I have shared this in every conversation that I've had right and I've said this publicly many many times. So this is not new. This year the uh amount of new growth is the lowest that is it has been in in over a decade. This to me is cause for alarm.
This to me is cause for alarm and it is the reason why we are here today. Right. I I said earlier that that uh um this year we have grown up we have gone our budget by $1 million. What if what if our budget had gone up by an additional
$3 million as it did in FY22? What more could we have funded with that additional $3 million? So, you know, and and this is tying it back to new growth is good for everyone.
New growth allows us to increase our funding for summer youth program. New growth allows us to keep our food panties food pantries running. We know that with ARPA fund ending, with ARPA running out, we we are going to have to
figure out right how to continue funding this program. And and I know that I'm going to come to the city council and I'm going to ask for more. I am going to ask the city council to support the summer youth program with funds. I am going to ask the city council to support the our food pantries with with uh uh
with with more. Right. Um, this this winter we created a warming center, the first ever warming center in in Chelsea's history. It cost $300,000 to run that warming center. Luckily, we got a state grant for that, right? The state grant ends on March 30th. We cannot
continue the the funding uh uh for for the warming center without the city contributing money, right? and and and the issue again, if we are using all of our $2 million in Proposition 2 and a half money to to fund our schools department, we cannot fund our our Chelsea athletics. We cannot support our
sports program, and we cannot support youth engagement programs. Now, I have talked to many counselors that were here in 2017 that were here in 2017 and adopted the inclusionary zoning ordinance. What I heard from the city
councilors was that the inclusionary zoning ordinance was passed to keep Chelsea affordable for existing Chelsea residents. Keep Chelsea affordable for existing res Chelsea residents. It was adopted to build affordable housing and
it was adopted to create housing units that are dignified and new for Chelsea residents. Right? Those were the three goals that I heard from the city council who who adopted uh uh the city ordinance. However, in every conversation that I had with with with counselors and some of them are here
today, they said inclusionary zoning was not meant to develop to stop all development. That was not the goal. The goal was not to stop all development. And the data that I'm going to show you tonight, I am I am making the very strong argument that that's exactly what
it did. Right? I hope that everyone in this room would agree that that is not the goal of inclusionary zoning. >> So what what uh what I am showing you here is is a report uh and the presentation has the QR code on it.
>> Sorry, Mr. Manager. I just just want to make sure um folks just to keep it down um as you're coming in and then just want to remind everybody Oh, there's not enough. >> Got it. Um, >> we have more. I mean, can get some more.
>> We have more. Um, do we need to do we have do we have somebody to go? Got it. Um, just want to make sure. Yeah. Um, sorry for the interruption everyone. Um, believe we can let's go ahead and
then um, yeah, >> thank you. >> So, this this report that is before the city council on the screen is from Mass Inc. Mask Inc., Inc. is an independent uh uh body that that publishes data
about housing. And the QR code is is is in this uh is in the presentation. Everyone can can feel free to to to look at that data. That that data is not city data. Um and what it shows it shows the uh net change in housing units in
gateway cities from 2022 to 2024. Right? So so Mask Inc. What they did is they counted the number of units that were in every city, gateway city and their suburbs uh at the start of 22 22 and they compared it at the start of 2024 and you can see where Chelsea is.
Chelsea is at the bottom right so the number of units that that were produced net change net change was negative. So Chelsea in that time period actually lost housing units. Sure. So this chart that is before the
city council today is from Mass Inc. And again the the the QR code uh will will take you to that report. That report uh was not created by the city of Chelsea. That is not data from the city of Chelsea. It is data from AS Inc. Mass
Inc. And what the report shows is net change of housing units in all gateway cities between 2022 and 2024. Right? and it shows Chelsea being at the bottom losing.8%
of our housing units. That that is not something that that I am okay with as a city manager. It is not something that I'm okay with as a as a as a uh uh as as a resident of Chelsea. Right? This is before the downturn of the economy, mind you. This is before before uh uh uh
interest rates went up, right? This is before any of these things that we are talking about today. This is from 2022 to 2024. Now I I I said earlier our our neighbors Everett and River you see where they are they are at the top and
number two and number three respectively and we will touch base on on a little bit more on that on that data. Right. So now taking a step back and looking at housing conditions in Chelsea. So over the last 5 years,
Chelsea has permitted permitted not built, permitted, issued permits for 681 total housing units. 247 of those units were market rate. 247
of those units were market rate. 125 of those units came in from projects that are nine units or less. Right? So what that tells me is that the majority of our development is is coming in and skirting right the uh building just
under the threshold that we established of 10 in order to not meet inclusionary zoning inclusionary zoning right um in fact 74% of the permits that we received from 2020 to 2025 a 5-year period came
in at less than nine units right so two twothirds of the applications that we received were for nine nine nine units or less. Right? This doesn't include at the bottom, which is Chelsea permitted 412
affordable units through 100% affordable housing programs like TND, like uh other developers that we'll talk about in a second. Now, the number that is most distressing to me, right, we said earlier that the goal of of inclusionary zoning was to build affordable housing
units. I think everybody in this room agrees with that. I think everybody in this room agrees with that and everyone in this room what I've seen in on social media is is there is a consensus that afford that inclusionary zoning was meant to build affordable housing. What
this data tolds me is that it is not achieving that goal. In that 5-year period, we have uh permanent 22 affordable units, but only 12 of those units have been built. And I can name three projects that built those 12.
Right? So the first uh uh was six units at 157 Chestnut Street, the old church on Chestnut Street, Church Stan. Um uh four units at 69 Spencer Avenue. Right. So four units were built at 69 Spencer Avenue. And then two units were built at
212 Ches Cherry Street, which are under construction and were developed by Juan Ggo. Right. So So we can count in in in my hand. uh and I know personally the number of of units that were built in that time period using inclusionary
zoning, right? So, anybody that that thinks that inclusionary zoning is resulting in affordable housing, I I challenge them uh uh to to a a very uh uh frank conversation about what's in front of them right now. Right? So also you'll see in in this pie chart right
that that 412 units were created you uh by afford 100% affordable affordable projects right so so the majority of the housing production that is happening right now in Chelsea is 100% affordable only 3% of the total units were were
created uh uh by inclusionary zoning right now diving into a little bit on on on that 412 pi Right. So, so uh affordable housing in Chelsea, a change to inclusionary zoning does not mean that we are going to change our support
of affordable housing. They are not tied together. In fact, the as I shared earlier, we have Chelsea has done a tremendous job building affordable housing in the last five years and we have a very solid pipeline of new projects, affordable housing projects
that are that are coming before you. And I shared what I think is now public public news to the city council that uh Mass Ottabon has closed on Forbes. Mass Ottabbon has closed on Forbes. We are very proud of that. The city was instrumental instrumental in closing on
Forbes. Uh and that is going to be a 100% affordable project, right? And that and that project we are going to support it. We are going to stand behind it. And I am going to advocate to this council. I'm making that commitment today that that I am going to advocate to this council. So, in this sheet, you will see
that uh uh there are three projects. There are three projects that were built in Chelsea. Duo uh duo uh apartments, 10:05 Broadway and 25 6th Street that created 196 units. There are five projects in the pipeline, 440 Broadway,
150 William Street. And next to it, uh next to the address is the the developer that is working on that project, right? a solders's home which is Penrose and and uh councelor Robinson asked for an update on 361 Broadway which is uh uh Aris Urban 170 Cottage Street which are
which are uh which is TND and two of those projects the the the the one at the top 440 Broadway and 150 William Street are home ownership opportunities which I know that is a big priority for this council right we contributed
to most of these projects if not We contributed financially. We contributed in in community support. We contributed in writing grants for them. We we we we we uh these projects I would argue would not have happened without the city support. And all of these
projects were we would have been permitted regardless of inclusionary zoning policy. All right. So, so just closing closing out if if if if I'm not uh uh boring you with data, right? uh of all of the affordable housing units that have been built in Chelsea, 5% of them
were created through inclusionary zoning. Right? So 95% of the units were not created through through inclusionary zoning. So again, if if one of the goals of of our inclusionary zoning ordinance as it was passed was to build affordable housing, I will tell the city council
that it is not working today. Now, let's look at our neighbors, right? So, so, so we said earlier that uh uh um I I made the analogy of the coffee shop and and saying you know if if uh I if if if we are closing our doors to to coffee to coffee they're probably going to end up
in our neighbors. So River does not have any inclusionary ordinance they have seen in that same period in that same graph that I shared earlier it shows them at 5.4% 4% increase in total housing units between 2022 and 2024. In FY26,
multifamily housing added $2.3 million. So this year, right? So nothing to do with the economy, nothing to do with interest rates this year. 2 they added $2.3 million in new growth to Revier's budget and total new growth was $3.2 million where in Chelsea's uh uh it was
$1 million. But what what's more important is you see the trends in the chart, right? You don't see them trending downwards and almost reaching zero as as you do in Chelsea. Now, this is Everett. So, Everett's Everett's a little bit more more complicated, maybe
a little bit more sophisticated. So, so Everett has uh the inclusionary zoning has three provisions, major provisions, which I'll share with the city council. Right. So Everett says that 50% 15% of the units are at 80% AMI or the developer has the option of picking 10%
of the units as 60% AMI. Right? And if it's a contaminated site and I would argue that in Chelsea most sites tend to be contaminated uh especially on Second Street, especially on on Everett Avenue where you see the majority of the development happening in Everett uh or or what's happening on Beum Street,
right? Um they can lower it if it's contaminated. they can lower it to 10% at 80 AMI or 7% at 60 AMI. And and this is the big caveat in Everett, right? That they say if you meet inclusionary zoning, the planning board will grant
you significant dimensional waiverss, right? Significant significant uh um waivers which is is is a way to facilitate development, right? That created that equaled 4.4 increase uh uh in housing between 22 and 24. And more
importantly, all new growth added $3 million in the levy. Now, this chart may look a little odd and and that's why I put the question, you know, uh uh Everett Everett is is a different beast, different animal, right? Because you see what happened in 2019. They added uh uh about $22 million in new growth in one
year, right? So, that that's that's very special, right? Uh uh that's that big fish that that u councelor Robinson and I are are trying to get, right? that if we can get that that that level of of one-year growth, right, it would be very significant to our community. So, I'm
getting to the end. So, so the uh uh I am being very uh uh thoughtful uh to to our city council and to our community saying that a change to our current inclusionary zoning is needed. I I I I reminded the city council earlier today that our current
inclusionary zoning ordinance says that it should be reviewed every five years. Right. Uh uh we have not conducted that review. We have not conducted that review uh uh to my knowledge since the inclusionary zoning was was uh was passed. Um and it is time to complete
that review. Uh so what we are proposing is three things. We are proposing to match Everett's Everett's inclusionary zoning level at 10% of the units at 80% AMI. We are then proposing to increase the number of projects from the from the
10 right now which I believe is too stringent and causing 74% of our projects to be to to become in at 90 units or less. Right. Uh and I am uh advocating to the city council to lower the payment in le amount from where it
is today at $400,000 and it has not been paid. Right. I will say that that the intent of of the payment in lie was to fund affordable housing and it's written in the ordinance. It says that it's gonna it's going to fund uh uh the affordable housing trust fund board.
It's going to fund uh uh new new construction in the city and and if if we we if we have not received any money in almost 10 years that tells me that tells me that a change is needed. Now, this is my last slide which I I want to read to this council and I read earlier
today. A change to our current inclusionary zoning ordinance can spark new development and create new growth to stabilize the city's budget and offer the ability for the city to provide more service to our residents. And I, as I showed you
earlier, all without impacting the production of affordable housing. This is about balancing new growth with affordability. By supporting this change, Chelsea can generate new revenue to strengthen city services and expand
the creation of dignified affordable housing. This approach will protect and invest in Chelsea public schools, in public safety, and the social services that our residents rely on. Um, with that, city council, I I I open it up for
questions and discussion. >> Thank you, Mr. Manager. Um, I think I'm going to start on the right side and work my way to the left. Um, so I'll just I'll start. Councelor Cooper, do you have any questions?
>> How much time do I got to talk? >> Do we have a limit? Four minutes. >> Our rules allow for four minutes by each counselor, but I think we are trying to get through as many as we can. >> Make it a minute and a half. I'm not going to make it anything, but I would just ask that you con convey your point
as succinctly as possible if you could please. >> Okay. And ask the city manager questions. You said to asking questions, right? >> One of the first questions I want to ask you what is 100% affordable? Explain to the people what is 100% affordable.
>> So 100% affordable. >> Sorry, Mr. Mayor. Just want to quickly let's do one question per counselor. All right. Not just like a barrage of questions from each counselor. one question and then we'll move on to >> and then we go back around. >> We will go back around as many times as we need to. >> All right. The first question I got is what is 100% affordable?
>> You got it. So, so 100% affordable uh is is a project and I'm not picking on anyone one organization but but I am going to use TND as the example, right? So, when TND does a project, say for example 256 street, right, it is deemed 100% affordable. Uh and and what that
means is is that even within that within TND's uh uh uh project, they break it out depending on on the different AMIs. What they do is they apply for different tax incentive programs, right, that come from the federal government, that come from the state. They also uh uh apply
for loans to to uh uh do that project uh right that that are not available to private uh developers, right? So, so what it means is that uh uh they they basically are able to receive funds, act
as a nonprofit, right? Uh and build 100% affordable projects uh um uh that the private market cannot do. >> But wait a minute. Okay. Can I just You still haven't answered the question what 100% affordable means. The the public
should understand what that means. 100% affordable doesn't mean that you live there. 100% affordable means they build a certain amount of units that are affordable and that's according to how many units you build. So if you build a 100 units only 10 out of those units
will be affordable. The rest are not affordable. You can't buy you can't go into these units and spend $3,000. The average income of a Chelsea resident is 40,000. So when they talking about 100% affordable 100% affordable not for
Chelsea resident. It's 100% affordable for the developers that develop because they are the ones in return they are getting a tax break like he just said. So the tax break is added on to the renters to people that rent or the poor people that live here. They have to make
up the difference while they are making money. So when the word comes up 100% affordable actually say what 100% affordable means. It does not mean that you, the Chelsea resident, one out of a hundred might be able to get that unit.
THE OTHER 99 DON'T GET NOTHING and you still rent in here and you're going to have to pay. >> That's what 100% means. >> Thank you. >> No more questions. >> You got And I also add that that that uh um just so we're clear, this only applies to future projects. It doesn't
apply to any existing existing units in Chelsea. >> Let's go to councelor Garcia. Do you have any questions? And councelor Cupro, your microphone is still on. >> Um, I have a couple questions, but I will only ask one. Um, I know that we um that we use, well, you use two
neighboring cities, right? Everett and Riviera, but I I would like to see the comparison between Somerville um because their inclusionary zoning is a lot stricter than what we have and they're booming. So, I would love for I
would love to see the comparison and and maybe um dig into how they've done things. >> Sure. >> Um in comparison to us. >> Yeah. Yeah. Know, it's a very good question, right? It's a very good question because because we sometimes compare ourselves to Cambridge and
Somerville, hence Boston, right? But I I will ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar ar arg argue counselor that uh um we don't have seapport, right? So, so uh you know it's it's it's not a fair comparison to compare us to to to Boston, right? And we certainly don't have assembly role, right? So, so it's it's a it's not a
fair comparison to to compare us to Somerville and we don't have Harvard or MIT. So, so it's it's it's not a fair or or or uh uh Kendall Square, right? Uh uh so so if I it's it's very hard to for us to compare us to uh those neighbors that
that are our um better off neighbors, right? I compare myself to my neighbors which are literally touching us, right? And what you see on Everett Avenue, uh uh if you're looking at at the the development that is happening uh on the other side of every avenue, right? Those
developments are closer to Chelsea City Hall than they are to Everett City Hall. They are literally in front of the Chelsea High School, right? So any effects that we are getting from those developments, whether it's traffic, whether it's congestion, whether it's parking, those are not affecting your regular Everett resident. They are
affecting us. >> You can have a follow-up comment, but we >> quick quick comment. >> Um, those Everett apartments, um, well, what I've heard and what I've seen is that they're empty. A lot of them are
empty. Is that something that we should worry about? So I I I I met with Greyar to talk about vacancy rates, right? Uh uh and that is not what I'm hearing, right? And and and I will I'll reach out to Greyar and get firm vacancy rates. I
will tell you that that Duo was built. duo was built uh um open up opened up I think I think in early 2024 maybe mid 2024 and and and they reached occup occupancy rate which means which legally is is uh 90% occupied very very quickly
right so so I I will get occup occupancy rates for from Greyar uh and and I will share with the city council I have heard this online that those buildings are are vacant but that is not the experience here in Chelsea in fact uh uh one North I speak to a lot vacancy rates are are
not low in one north. I speak to parsai common right and those uh th those buildings have very healthy occupancy rates. I speak to Juan Gaygo right and every one of his units is occupied on on on the new buildings and and the old buildings. So since we've had two
follow-up questions I will allow follow-ups but one followup so that we can the goal here is to make sure that every counselor gets to speak within the next hour. Um, yeah. Uh, sorry. Turn on the mic, please, if you have a question. >> But then this is going to be like an open conversation, right?
>> Yeah. Yeah. I I just want to make sure that if people have questions that we all get to ask questions and then if we want to have a full-on conversation about it, we can definitely do that as well. Um, councelor Taylor. >> Yeah. I so I'm a little frustrated because this is
a this is a important topic and there needs to be discussion here. This subcommittee is for us. This subcommittee is not for the public. This subcommittee is not for we like, you know, I don't want to have a
subcommittee where the city manager takes up half the subcommittee with his presentation and then we get one question. That's not a real subcommittee. >> We will be here as long as this council is willing to be here. There is no time limit to this to this meeting. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. I I myself
have a work event to get to around 7:15, but if the council wants to stay here all night, I'm just I'm just laying out I'm just laying out the rules here. I want to make sure that every counselor gets the opportunity to speak. I know that some of us can be very wordy and and take a long time if we are allowed to to to keep the mic. I want to make
sure that all 11 of us have the opportunity to to ask questions so that we can have an informed discussion afterwards. That is the goal. >> I appreciate that. That's that's not my intent, my comments. >> Yeah. Okay, then I apologies for the misconstruction. You have the floor.
First of all, I I just want to make sure that I heard you correctly when you talked about Forbes and that you're going to advocate for Forbes to be 100 a 100% affordable
project there, the most valuable piece of property in Chelsea, the last big parcel that that could ensure uh a more stable long-term term financial situation for the city of
Chelsea and you're proposing it going to be 100% affordable. >> Um I should rephrase that and and not saying that that I am going to propose it because it it belongs to Mass Ottabbon now, right? So So it is it is
it is a mass Ottabbon project now. Um I I shared the um the uh vision uh uh with the council um and and it is it is it is going to be a transformative project. You're right. It is it is a a project
that that it is going to um not create as much revenue as it could. I I I'll tell you right now that I will fight tooth and nail against that because that that is not sound policy to build an
economic engine that's supposed to give us the revenue so that we can take care of of our residents. Okay, >> this is the problem. This is the problem. this mentality that we have
that the more affordable housing the better. That is that is not good for a balanced community. You sat here and talked about that we need a more balanced community. I've been saying that for a long time. >> Our our our community is not balanced.
It's about to tip over. So, I gotta say this is this is that that part of your your and I I'm assuming it was an off-hand comment that maybe you weren't ready to uh divulge publicly,
but >> it just got closed on Friday. >> Yeah. So, I got to say we have to get serious about creating a viable economic engine in Chelsea. Otherwise, the money
is gonna dry up. You said it yourself. >> And for for everybody who comes to this city council asking for money, that money is not going to be here if if we don't do something to change what's
going on in this city. This chart bears that out, right? the economic situation is not the same as it was. >> And just for the record, I wasn't on the
city council then. I was on the planning board and the planning board had to vote on this and I voted against the inclusionary zoning from the very beginning because it didn't make any sense to me. And I've been borne out on that. This it it has not been a success. and and and and it's not for you know I
think the people who pushed it had good intentions but you know what they say about good intentions right the road to hell is paved with good intentions so I I I got to say we
can you can you go and can you explain to the council the economic situation If we don't pass the new uh and we keep things how they are, what what's what's going to happen to your to the best of
your uh prognostication? >> I think we are going to have massive layoffs and I think we are not I know we are not going to be able to continue supporting our schools as we want to. We
just went through a very, very, very tough school budget process where the city the city council was asked to invest more money that that we did not have and we pulled from our reserves. It
is it is going to take our reserves to a very concerning level. Right? Uh uh and we weren't talking about small amount of money, right? We have increased our contribution in the last three years to Chelsea public schools by $6 million as
we should. As we should. We we stood there and we said we are going to keep investing in our community. But we are not going to be able to continue that investment unless we drastically change
our current policies. >> Thank you, Mr. Manager. Uh, Councelor Hines, >> um, just just to add some context here, um, and not that I need to contextualize my fellow counselor here, but, um, I I
understand that in order to pay the bills, we got to find ways to generate income as we all do in our normal lives. Um, I just want to add some additional context because we talk about AMI and you mentioned um that we're not Boston,
but unfortunately for Chelsea when it comes to the area median income, we do get grouped in with them and 80% AMI for one person is just shy of $93,000 >> for one individual. >> For one individual. >> That's right.
>> That's not my question. My question is in regards to the last slide you had up. Um I think it's slide number five. >> Okay. >> Um the inclusionary zoning was adopted
in 2017. I of course was not >> here. Um why why did we take a a snapshot of what happened in the last five years versus what's happened since the inclusionary zoning was adopted? >> Sure. um in in the hallway in the
hallway uh Chelsea Palante took a snapshot of 30 years, >> right? That and you'll see it in the hallway in one of the charts. >> Okay? >> Right? That uh uh and and and what you see there is is essentially the same thing that I'm telling you now, right?
We saw a huge amount of growth, right? Everett level growth, River level growth in 2014, 2015, 2016. inclusionary zoning was passed in 2017 and you see a trickle after that, right? And and and that that chart is is in the hallway. It is not a
new chart. It is something that we have been talking about for over a year, right? And and this idea of new growth and the need to grow is something that we have been talking about for over a year. Yes, the crisis in budget in Chelsea public schools did bring this to alarming levels and it is why I am
before the city council today. follow up. >> Can I ask what was the distinct difference between 2022 with commercial development and 2026? Now 2022 there's a spike on the
chart and then we decline. >> So I'm going to look at the new growth chart. Right? So so what you see here, right? This is a a light blue is commercial development, right? Um, dark blue is housing development. Housing
development, right? A and in 2022, we had a couple of commercial developments that that were very high, right? Uh uh but you see that the blue was uh uh was was uh still pretty high, right? Those were projects that were approved and
finally came online before inclusionary zoning, right? So those were and and again I I I bring it back to the council, right? In the last five years, we have received four applications for projects over 50 units. Four, two of
them were for 100% affordable projects and one of them was withdrawn by the petitioner. So, one project has been approved by the by the by the planning board in uh in by by the zoning board uh in the last five
years over 50 units. One project that to me is not okay. Um yeah, let's go to councelor Sanade and then we can um Yeah, go ahead. >> Great. Um hi everyone. So as a former educator, I can say some of the best
thinking I got from my students was when they were allowed to brainstorm and problem solve. And the key feature was that there was no judgment. So I've been brainstorming. So I'm asking that you don't judge some of my ideas in case
they're really uh out of the box. One of them is would it be possible? I know that um some of the options that you put some of the caveats were that the council could lower the number of
units and they can increase the payment in loo. Is it possible say we have a 100 units 10% would be at 80% AMI is what you say will
be the most economically feasible for the developers >> right that's what >> for the economy I would say >> the economy and developers is there any wiggle room in that so that we can at least say from those could one be 30 and
could one be 50 and could the rest be 80? Can't we have a like one or two opportunities for people like myself as a teacher who wouldn't have with my salary wouldn't have been able to afford
to do that? So, is there a way we can have the same mix only not um the higher percentage for each of those that mix? Um, that is what the city council
thought in 2017, right? The the let's build units that are deeply affordable, right? That that was the intention. That was the intention of the inclusionary zoning in 2017. And it it was a very good intention. >> But wasn't the 15% divided among those
three percentages of AMI? That's right. Now you're saying take two of those away. So make them all 80%. >> Can't we manipulate that a little bit just so that there's a chance for one person? >> Sure. >> Even if it's one, it's more than none.
>> Yeah. I I I I of course of course there's a chance. The the uh and what Everett did, right, that you you see in in in on the screen before you is is an idea of that, right? The the developer gets to pick, right? Okay. So, so, so, uh, it's either uh,
uh, 10% at 80 or 7% at 60, right? Which, which gets to that level, right? But they understand they they acknowledge, right, that that uh, um, that it is that balance, right? Uh, and they also offer,
but if you do this, we are going to grant you a lot of waiverss from the planning board, right? That makes permitting process a little easier, right? and and it's not as contentious. It is not as uh uh it is it is not a very difficult vote which I know that we
are very familiar with very difficult votes before the planning board and the zoning board recently. So, yes, AB, absolutely. It's it's absolutely possible. >> And I guess a followup, which isn't really a followup. Um, well, sort of. If if we did something
creative like that, could we pilot it? >> Like, we don't have to. This isn't in perpetuity. >> Absolutely not. >> But we could have um a review sooner than five years, which is what you're saying we have now. That we didn't actually do.
>> That we didn't actually do. Right. So, so we are looking at this at this market study because of what it says in the ordinance, right? It says that it must be required every 5 years. It must be studied every 5 years. We have not done that. We have not done that as a community, as a city, as a as as as as
an administration. We have not done that. We are doing it today. Right. But but uh uh the city council could could could uh uh open this up for a year and then uh in in one year uh the new ordinance, the new amendment could reduce that 5-year uh review to one
year, of course, and and in one year we can sit before you and I can hopefully show you uh very different news. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, counselor. Uh so I have a question. So I I'm really curious. How much certainty do we have
then the that the inclusionary zoning policy is what is preventing new development from happening in Chelsea given that there are other factors like high interest rates high inflation and others right we can we can see that it is not incentivizing the new development
right as was the intention but I am curious what is the reasoning behind thinking that it is not right the incentivizing the development um I think that it this is something that is really worthwhile to understand because we don't want to be in a place where something like this
moves forward we lower the the percentage it ultimately doesn't have an impact on development but then we lose out on the you know 20some units that we have built right so I I I want to I want to make sure that we understand like is this actually the barrier versus is it
just we're in a crappy economic position on a whole other slew of factors and then this is just kind of one of them but not actually meaningful. This is why the Mask Inc. report which was very public and I was ashamed. I got a call from the Boston Globe about this report. I was ashamed. I said I don't believe
this. I have to look at this data and and I put my entire team through this report. I I sent it to uh I talked about it with with Raphael Mahrez who is at TND. I I was ashamed of this report. Right. It I did not believe it is not possible for Chelsea. We think we are
leading the way in in on on a state on many issues on housing between 2022 and 2024. We were not leading the way right in terms we we in fact we were at the lowest of all of our peers and and and imagine that if you are building a
project between 22 and 24. It is before the crisis. It is before the uh uh the the interest rates went up. In fact, uh when I speak to to developers who were building in that period, banks were giving away money, right? They uh I I refinanced my house at that time and and
and got very very low percentages, right? The the it it was not the economy then, right? I in the last five years, so we're talking 2020, 2021, 2022, right? In the last five years, we have received
one, we have permitted one project over 50 units. last 5 years, not in the last 12 months when the economy has has uh has tanked. It's not like in 2020, 2021, 2022, things were booming. We were saying no to developers, don't come, don't come. And now all of a sudden that the economy slowed down. It is
happening. >> Thank you. Um I just want to thank councelor Garcia for her question because that was on my list. So I will not ask it. I will pass it on now to councelor Robinson. Uh >> thank you. I I was actually involved in doing the inclusionary zoning.
We didn't get the benefit I thought that we would get. So I think in taking a review and taking a look at things and one of the things that we haven't talked about is the taxpayers and the fact of what effect that this
has had on the taxpayers not only residents who are sitting here that get a 35% on off of their taxes and the commercial. if you can give a little demonstration. We have two parcels that are main
parcels. You mentioned Forbes and we've been in conversations with Market Basket >> and if you can show what the difference would be in regards to what benefit we would get in the development of Market
Basket as opposed to what we're going to recoup in the development of Forbes. I think people can get a a little clearer understanding of why we need to review this, why we need to take a look at things and and what we can do to
kickstart development. >> Absolutely. And I will say that that we are very excited about market basket, right? We are very very very excited about that. I I it is one of the levers that that we can pull. We can make zoning a little bit easier for people, right? Uh uh we can make make it that is
one of the incentives that we can pull, right? and and we are uh very excited about that conversation. Uh we we we just had a meeting with market basket uh uh the other day. We shared our progress. They they are on the table. It doesn't mean that it's going to happen tomorrow, right? Uh uh so so I just want
to be set real set realistic expectations because it's such a big entity, right? Because it is such a big project, right? Uh um so in in what happens in Chelsea, right? We do two things in Chelsea. One is we do we have
a split rate right so so uh we shift 1.75 of our tax burden to commercial industrial and personal property right so that means that I pay a lot less to my in my tax bill because we are doing
that shift right so so in my home all of our homes right we pay a lot less on top of that we do give homeowners a 35% residential tax exemption that is something that the city council does And it is something that that that really gives uh uh the the homeowners in
Chelsea a huge benefit. What that means is that if you are a homeowner in Chelsea, you have the lowest tax bill in our area in our region and that is data that we have shared with the city council before. It is data that we share every time that that that we set the tax rate which is which is every fall,
right? But with affordable housing, what it does is that it is deed restricted. So what that means is that essentially it it slashes the value typically in half, right? So so 256 street for
example, if 256 street was uh is 100% affordable, right? Uh we would get we get half or less of the tax dollars than we would if it was 100% market rate. Right? So so that's that's that's essentially the the impact to our tax
base on on a project basis. Well, just the my my my other thought is, you know, you and I have worked to try to get Hasbboro to take a look at Chelsea. We weren't successful. >> Now, we've reached out to the WNBA team to if they're looking for space that we
have space for them. And maybe you can explain what benefit that would be for the city if a company like that relocated in the city of Chelsea. >> It would be transformational, right? It would be like that chart that I shared shared with Everett, right? It would add
a a a facility, a business coming here and building a new headquarters would add hundreds of millions of dollars to to the tax base and would lead to very very very good growth, right? I shared the graph in Everett of what happened in 2019, right? Uh uh it transformed that
community in a good way and it also was was the snowball effect, right? Right. So, so it opened up people to to look at that community in terms of of additional expansion. Now, what what it does to a community like River, right? So, so uh uh councelor Hines we said uh uh you
know what is housing doing? What is what is actually what are you getting for for housing? Right. So, so you see the chart from Rivier from new from new growth that again light blue is uh uh is commercial industrial dark blue is residential. Right? So, so you see the numbers that Revier is getting in in
residential, right, in 2026, right? So, so in the same economy that that that we are doing, that is because they're they had a a churn, right? They had permits that were constantly issued for large projects that we have not had. >> Thank you, Mr. Manager. Councelor
Deesus. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, so it's been a lot of tough conversations. Um I think at the last uh conversation we had I mentioned how we will be seeing these tough conversations
um not just when we're talking about school budget but as we talk about uh city council budget and and I hope to see a room filled with community members there then um because I think it's important for us to to be driven by um our community as well. I'm all for
growth. I mentioned and have mentioned before um flat iron project that's a creative way of bringing in revenue without thinking about uh development right outside of the box thinking outside of the box and brainstorming. I think we need to do more of that but I
also want to ensure that we're not just pouring money into the situations when our community members are coming in. I'm hearing them say we need money. There's gaps. But I'm also hearing them say, city councilors and city manager, look
at how you're managing your money. Right? I'm also hearing them say, have more critical conversations around how the money is being spent and how we can potentially be saving or making the money go further as we ride this wave that we're in right now. Right.
>> Yes. >> Um I am interested in learning more about this data. Um I've it was my understanding that the Mass Inc. um data that they're using is based on US postal
address changes. >> Yes. >> So technically we are talking about this crisis and this chart but technically this chart is demonstrating that there are less address changes in the city of Chelsea. Mind you mine the other day was posted on Facebook because I did my
address change and it didn't fully change. So, thank you to the community member who was um considerate enough to find me and make sure that that I was aware. But that worries me because then we're talking about this critical information, but it's based on address
changes, not actual new development. So, that's that's something I'm interested in hearing more about. And then um I'm looking forward to understanding how our local uh housing advocates and
community members were incorporated into this um process and into this plan because back in I don't know if it was 2016 2017 I was in the affordable housing trust before becoming a city counselor and the conversations I was having were around how we had an awful
lot of developers bought do the buyout instead of pouring into a unit. I'd rather see an affordable housing unit in our community than money spent to create another park. And I, you know, right, you know, with all respect to all of our
parks and our community members that are, you know, have children and want to bring, I don't know, their their their families to the park, I would rather see an affordable housing unit invested in our community than a developer buy out, create only market rate and not and and
opt out with throwing a few bucks that will not reach the the the impact that that affordable housing unit will reach. Um, so I'm interested in learning how at simultaneously as we lower then from 400k to 100 100k, how are we going to at
the same time implement um anti-displacement um uh uh programs and and initiatives to ensure that if if our families are displaced that we have the wraparound services to support them. I'm interested
in hearing what CAPIC has to say. I'm interested in hearing what Laorativa has to say, what TND have to say. Our families go to these agencies, they see the most vulnerable. Um, you know, to think that that 90k income, I think it was councelor Deron who shared, um, we don't have a lot of folks that are in
that bracket. A lot of the folks that are that are in our community are way be below that bracket, especially if they're a single parent household. And so, um, looking forward to working with you, city manager, and my colleagues here. I also want to acknowledge that when I share mismanagement of money, I'm
holding myself accountable, this body, but this didn't happen overnight. So, this was years in the making, right? We had many opportunities to ensure that if if we were going to invest in technology or in certain areas that maybe could
have been negotiated or not as necessary to save our ourselves for this moment, then then great. But we're here, right? for whatever reason we're here. I think it's important that we have those conversations to understand how we can have critical conversations regarding
how we're spending our money and then move forward again with with the conversations on the ground with folks. >> I think that was three questions and I and I'm going to try to answer them that >> I know I try to get away with it. >> Yeah. Yeah. For sure. For sure. The the first question was this masking report.
Is it accurate? Right. And it and I think you mentioned uh uh is it measuring people that move people that move from one home to another? Right. When I saw this report, I will tell you that I lost my chair. I I think the hair that I have remaining is gone now. Right. This is a terrible report and it
shows Chelsea in a terrible light. So the first thing that I did is I picked up the phone and I called Andre Laru who runs Mass Inc. Right. And we have a very very good partnership with Mass Inc. and and uh we we are we attend their gateway summits. They give us an award if you
remember uh last year for 440 Broadway. We we are we are very much a part of Mass Inc. Uh and I said this cannot be true. It it is absolutely not true. What what he told me is is this is how we pulled that data and this is why I added the QR code, right? This is not our
data. I have validated that data with Mass Inc. through several conversations and feel free to dig into into that report. Did they share that it's because of the address change? >> No. So, so what they said is essentially is is that it is not that people moved, right? So, people went from from uh
Chelsea to Ravier and therefore we lost a person. What they said is is that they aggregated the the number of units number of units based on based on postal data, right? So, so when when a new building comes up, right, you are
creating new postal data. when a building comes down, you are deleting postal data. So, so this is this is where the term net change comes in, right? That what they're saying basically is did you add units or did you lose units in that period and what
Mass Inc. is saying I am not saying this this that report I challenged this data quite a bit to them and I said it's not true it's not true and and and I was with calls calls with them and and and they said that this this data doesn't lie unfortunately and and what what what
this report said was uh uh number of new postal addresses created compared to number of postal units that were gone right so it's net change in that given time period so that that is one thing the the I am happy to arrange a
presentation from Mass Inc. on this data uh uh with the city council if that is the the the desire. the the uh uh the second point that you made right this is uh uh is on on the buyout amount on the bay buyout amount there is uh uh several
changes proposed before this council one of them is that buyout amount but the only reason why I'm I'm implement I I I I said that is because if we do want to get funds if this city council is interested in receiving funds in order to implement anti-displacement work
right with ARPA money We invested a lot of money in raft. We invested a lot of money on rental assistance. We we invested a a lot of money on wraparound services. We invested a substantial amount of money that we are not going to
have right when when ARPA runs out. So if we want to create a a new way to generate this money, then this is the way. If if if this is not the this is one way, maybe not the way. This is one way. If the city council says, "Nope, we
we would rather not have the money and take the unit, then then we don't have to change that aspect of the of the of the of of the of this ordinance, but we have to look at each other in the eyes and say we acknowledge that we are not going to get this money, right? A
and we are not going to be able to use the original ordinance says right that this payment in le shall go to the affordable housing trust fund board and it shall be used to fund anti-displacement work and the creation of new affordable units right with
afford 100% affordable projects. So so we we if if if that is not a funding source that we are relying on then that's okay. But what that means is that we're going back to the well, right? We are going back to our tax base to fund this anti anti-displacement work and and
again back to to to the idea of we're going to have to face some really tough challenges, tough conversations in terms of what we are funding. >> Thank you, Mr. Manager. I'll move on to councelor Tesh. >> Thank you. Um Mr. Chair, uh m Mr. Mr.
City Manager, I want to make sure that we go back to, you know, what this is about. At the core, we're talking about whether or not we want to sacrifice affordable housing protections in return for a
higher budget every year. When I look at your proposals, you're seeking to increase the the requirement of uh affordable regulations. If you build 10 units as of now, you have to do
15% affordable housing. You're saying that the new limit will be 100 units, meaning as long as you build 99 units, you do not have to build any affordable. Correct? >> Yes. All right. Now on the next question
is your next proposal that you want to make sure that we decrease the payment in of fees in lie to affordable housing from 400,000 down to 100,000. So we're talking about not only
going to 100 new units the new limit but now you're saying even if you want to build more than 100 you don't have to pay 400,000 anymore. You can just pay a 100. Correct? >> No, that one is is is more complicated. the the uh the payment in lie, right? Uh what it does, it gives the developer the
option to not make it affordable and instead write the city a check, >> right? So so so they they uh uh they can choose to put a deed restriction on that unit, right, and have it be affordable forever in perpetuity or they can choose to write a check to the city and the city can appropriate it for uh whatever
the the city would like through the affordable housing trust fund board. So So it's not it's not a permit fee. is not is is not that if you build projects over 100, we get money. That's that's not that's not how that fee works, >> right? But they they they get the option. Uh but nonetheless, this would only get triggered if you built a
hundred or more. >> Right. >> Correct. Okay. >> Um so, you know, again, I'm thinking whether or not this makes sense because if if we do that, then virtually every single development that's coming except maybe for two now that are over 100, um would not include any affordable
housing. And and why that concerns me is because when we look at the AMI in Chelsea, we already talked about 90,000, you know, be being the accepted AMI for for households, uh, at least for one person in the city in the city of Chelsea,
>> which means when you talk about what the market rate is for one unit, what's that amount? >> I'm sorry. >> Market the value of a market rate unit. What is the rent that they charge? >> The average. >> The average. >> What is the average rent that they
charge? Is that what you're asking >> for market rate? >> No, I'm talking about the the cost of one unit. >> I'm sorry. I don't understand the question. Councelor, are you asking uh uh what does what what does market rate charge? >> Yes. >> Per unit? It depends on the on the area. It depends on the development. Depends
on the amen amenities right in in in the building. Uh um it depends on >> would would you say that a market rate unit would be out of uh the the capacity of affordability of uh of a regular person in Chelsea? >> Yes.
>> So we're talking about changing every virtually every new development that would come to Chelsea to be unaffordable to the average resident of Chelsea. So I I I I will argue counselor that uh
uh the intent of the inclusionary zoning uh ordinance as it was passed in 2017 was three things right and is before you. It is as as you said to keep Chelsea affordable to existing Chelsea residents. We heard that right. We heard that uh from you. We we we heard that
that uh uh keep Chelsea Chelsea affordable, right? And and create housing units that are But what I'm telling you, counselor, is that if you if we don't change things, right? If we don't change this, we are not going to get any development. That is what I'm saying. That is not done by 100%
affordable projects. And and and what I am proving to you with this data is that in the last five years, right, past data, past history, in the last five years, we have built 12 units of affordable housing with inclusionary zoning, right? So, so uh uh what what
you are saying is is that um were those 12 units for uh uh for a good investment? Right? That is the question that we're having today, right? which is which is uh are the restrictions are the restrictions um if everything is equal,
right? Are are the restrictions uh creating more housing, keeping Chelsea housing, preventing pre preventing development in Chelsea? And the answer is is I I don't think I don't think it's doing any of that. >> I don't think it's doing any of that. >> I I just want to I I you have asked a number of yes or no questions, so I kind
of allowed like two responses. So I want to move on to councelor Brown. Um we can again we will have a chance to come I'll give you like if you want like 20 seconds to close council >> and then we can >> I'll wait my opportunity for
>> sure that sounds uh >> uh that'll be >> Mr. Thank you councelor Brown uh Mr. City manager now I want to ask um you know you you referenced the data um from Mass Inc. Yes. Um and and you mentioned that this is a net change, correct? Um
isn't it true that around the same time period between 23 2023 in 2024 was when we lost 94 units from the dual development under construction? >> Uh so I think that's right. >> Right. So so that would account for some of the loss that suffer that Chelsea suffered. Um
and uh around that time period we also built 70 new units. Correct. I don't know how how much we built but that's data that I can get. >> Okay. So what I'm trying to say is that the the evidence >> actually that that that report also what
I am showing right now is is the the the number of percentages. I'm showing the percentage it's not showing the uh the units right so so so that uh that that same that same uh uh uh chart has number of units and and percentage. So, what I'm trying to say is that right after
Duo um was opened, we got how many? 330 new units. >> Uh sure. Yeah. >> Right. So, but I I will remind you counselor that Duo is on my affordable housing housing uh uh list and Duo had
nothing to do with inclusionary zoning. Right. In fact, it was permitted I think before inclusionary zoning happened. Maybe not. Maybe it was 2018, 2019. uh uh and and it was done through a state program. Y >> right. So Duo would have happened regardless of inclusionary zoning.
Right. And I will argue to this council that we have a very beautiful transformative exciting project that I am going to advocate for as well in Prattville with Corkerin to do the dual model and and so that that is is something that we can do both.
>> Yes. So that that's what I'm trying to say, right? the the data that you're showing us um and that you know you want to justify why we should make these changes is data that shows a a virtual temporary dip that Chelsea had in terms of newly created um housing stock. Um it
does not show what's going on at this moment. So, you know, I'm I'm completely in favor of uh making changes when we need to, but I just want to make sure that we get the most updated data if we're going to make this decision that's going to have again severe impacts when we're talking about the loss of
affordability of virtually every single family when we talk about averages in the city of Chelsea. Um, >> okay. I I I I would argue counselor that that the data that I'm leading with is is is the data that is before you today and it is something that that is not new
to this council, right? And it is not something when you look at the dark blue in this chart, right? We just saw reviewers, right? When you look at the dark blue and and you look at how much growth was added by housing in 2026,
right? It it is it is a fraction a fraction of what it was. And as you know, counselors, we gave Corkerin a 15-year tax incentive finance deal, which means that Corkran is not paying taxes, right? That was a deal that we
that we made 1515 15 year and that wasn't me. It was done and it wasn't maybe a few of the members of the city council and it was done to have that project happen, right? It was a decision that we made, not we, it was a decision that the city made that this that that a counsel made saying that it
wouldn't have built the project without giving a tax break. So, we are not going to see tax revenue from Duo and Corkran for a long time. >> All right. Um, I have a question for the council. We can do another round the
same way we did now, or we can have the opportunity for people to respond to whatever a counselor says. Um, what was that? >> I I'm just curious. Do we want kind of the ability to interject one another? Uh, and I'm sorry, Councelor Brown, you gave councelor Tesh your time. That's
why I'm not >> Oh, okay. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. So, I do people want another round of questions? >> Can we ask questions ourselves? >> Yes. This would be the same way that we did it just now. I I am just curious how the council wants to spend its time. whether you want to be able to interject
one another with opinions or whether we want another round of questions. Councelor Taylor and then councelor Hines. >> Okay. Seeing that this is really the only time where we can ever talk about things without violating the um open
meeting law, >> we need to talk about this. But this was my point at the whole thing. No, no, I don't mean I don't mean one at a time asking questions and having a very disjointed, oh, I'm interested in this. I'm I'm talking about like hashing out
these things >> and and if somebody's making an argument and somebody maybe has another perspective, maybe those two should be batted back and forth. >> So, it sounds like you're in favor of being able to interject with one another is what I'm hearing you say. Okay, great. Does the council agree? I'm going
to go to councelor Hines and then I want to make a decision. It is up to you all how we want to proceed. I I don't >> I don't care one way or the other. I just want to make sure that we can move it along so that we can have conversations. Um, councelor Hines, please. >> Yeah, I agree. I say this deserves to be a a conversation amongst all of us
rather than like a back and forth >> with Fidel, whether it be information that we have or just again all of this is very nuanced and and iter deserves >> absolutely that in conversation. So >> yeah, and I think the intent was to give everybody the opportunity to ask a question that that that was to make sure
that we could get things clarified. Um so for now we will kind of allow for people to to discuss as um yeah I I I think given that councelor Brown right has asked to kind of like move in this general way I will kind of go in that
way but but if councelor Brown says something and somebody would like to to respond you can raise your hand and we will be able to do that. Councelor Brown go ahead. >> Thank you Mr. President. I just got a general question. I just it's not even a question. It's just we're here. We realize that, you know, what's been done
with the inclusionary rule zoning over the past few years haven't really benefit us here as Chelsea. Obviously, from some of the conversation we see and hear here tonight, it comes with some negative effects. It comes with some harms. We're here to hash out, as my
fellow council member just said, to how do we get to where we make Chelsea benefit from what we need to do moving forward. Do we stay in the same place? Do we start realizing that we have to start having some serious discussion
about what's going to happen to our services that help us get where we are in our recognition of what we've done over the past 10 years um whether it's um all American city awards working and improving our community. How are we going to make those decisions? So I'm
I'm open to that. I it seems like there's a lot of hold back or pull back on why we're here and we don't want to do it but we have to do something. So that's my statement. >> Thank you councelor. I had councelor
Hines and then councelor Robero. >> Sorry. Um I just want to say um as illustrated like 125 units are from projects nine units or less which to me looks like our is being gamed right now.
Um where people are skirting out on on creating the affordable housing properties as it stands currently. Um but my question um to you or to anybody up here is um you illustrated some of
the uh developments that are being done in river. They have no inclusionary zoning policy 5.4 increase in total housing from 2022 to 2024. What if any cuz it doesn't say in the illustration about the impacts of
increased prices or displacement like what what is going on within those numbers. I um I I we're very close with with Revier, right? We're collaborating on a lot of different things, whether it's climate, whether it's uh um whether it's
um 911, right? Uh regionalization, uh um I I I I point you to one example of Revier, which which I love sharing, right? And and I think councelor Tener Garcia is going to appreciate this
one. If you go to Shirley A in River, right, that is an area that has been transformed, right? And is contributing a lot to housing, right? I I I would travel to River 5 years ago, seven years ago, right? And Shirley Aav was not what it
is today, right? It is it is now booming. It has Colombian restaurants, it has Central American restaurants, it has Asian restaurants. It is an area. It is it is their TDI district. the total uh development initiative. Uh I probably
butchered that acronym, but but it is it is their it is their transformation district, right? And it is in an area that is very similar to Everett Avenue to Chelsea. It is in an area that is very similar to Broadway in Chelsea. It is very similar to an area that is like Washington Avenue in Chelsea. Right? So,
so I would argue with you, I would try to convince you that that that development particularly on Shirley Avenue has benefited river in many many ways. Now, I want to point to one other example, right, which is the other the
other example of Everett, right? So, so uh uh if if somebody says, you know, the um the the development is Everett is impacting Everett, right? and it's creating all these things, all these nuisance. I I I I I told this counselor earlier. It is not right. Those things
are happening on the other side of our border. Literally. Literally on the other side of our border. Right. When you go on Veil Street, you don't know when Chelsea starts and when when whenever it starts. But you know who knows? Our assessor knows. Our assessor knows because he can't send him a tax
bill. Right? When uh when when when Shop and Stop was building, right? They built the parking lot in Chelsea and they built the housing units in uh in in Everett. That company was Grace, I'm sorry, was Fairfield, I think, or Greyar, I forget. They told us this.
They said, "We are doing this because of inclusionary zoning, right? And this is not new. This this was told to our previous city manager, right? And and and and we said, "Eh, whatever. We don't care, right? Uh uh and that is a decision that was made. Those units,
those projects are affecting us more, right? They're affecting Chelsea more than it is affecting Everett. >> Sorry, just going to give that a second. Thank you, Ben. Um, council, please. Uh, first I'd like to say if I speak
loud, I'm deaf. So, don't let my voice go think that I'm yelling. I'm doing that because I'm deaf. I want the people to understand that I'm not yelling. I'm doing it because I'm deaf. That's why I wear this thing so I can hear you. I I hear myself talk louder.
Now, I have a few questions. You answered most of them, but I want the public to understand. When you build affordable housing, nobody's against affordable housing. I'm in favor of affordable housing, but I I'm in favor of affordable housing for
Chelsea people. For one, you can't give it to Chelsea people because the state law doesn't allow you. You answer the other question. When you build affordable housing, they pay a minimal tax. So, what that does is it puts the burden on renters. People that rent
these apartments will have to pay more money to make up the difference that affordable housing brings in. That is the truth. That's what you got to understand. You said it yourself. You echoing what I'm telling you. So affordable housing to me, I always
advocated or I always want I was here when they did this in 2017. The intent, like you said, was to make more affordable housing, but it doesn't happen. What happens is you get a big development. They come in, they build a big building, but only a minimal amount
of people can live there. And you can do the same thing the other way because the people that are there are people that are subsidized. So if you have section 8, you can go to these buildings regardless of what it is. If you have affordable or not affordable, then who pays is the other ones. You go, I know
what the apartments cost. If you go to a place where it says market rate value, they're going to charge you for a onebedroom $2,000. They're going to charge you two grand for one bedroom. For a twobedroom is 2500. A threebedroom is 3500. The
average income of a Chelsea resident, tell them what it is. It's $40,000. So it means the average CHELSEA PERSON CANNOT LIVE in these apartment. I understand everybody wants to have affordable housing but it doesn't work
that way. It does not work. I have my daughter has BEEN WAITING 10 YEARS 10 YEARS. She has two children. She lives with me. She hasn't got affordable housing. So they I used to say to people, WELL WHY DON'T YOU BRING I COME WHERE'S THE CHELSEA PEOPLE? WHAT IS ACTUALLY the Chelsea amounted Chelsea
people that I get in these units? You know what one of them said to me? You figure this out. They said to me, "Aren't they Chelsea people?" DID YOU GET WHAT THEY MEANT? They meant, "WELL, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE MOVING IN ARE GOING TO BE CHELSEA PEOPLE, BUT THE ACTUAL CHELSEA PEOPLE ARE NOT THE ONES GOING
THERE." SO, I'm not against affordable housing, but I want affordable housing for people. I don't want a small percentage where you put 2% of affordable and everything else is market rate or income based because
most PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE THERE. So they got these people here telling them affordable affordable but actually explain to them what affordable is. It's not affordable. Affordable housing is not affordable for the average individual. You can go to any building
you want. If you got subsidized, if you got section 8, it doesn't matter affordable or not affordable. You get it. So my question is a simple one, right? You want to change this. Your intent is to what? bring in more
housing, more revenue. When I told you I was here when they did it, we wanted more housing. You just said the data. WE HAVE LESS HOUSING. SO, it didn't work. It didn't do what it was supposed to do. So, HOW DO WE FIX IT? THAT IS THE
conversation that we all should have. How do we fix something that is broken that needs to be fixed? >> Can we fix it through this or can we fix it to another way? I know state law if you build affordable housing you have to follow state rules which tells you you
have to put so many you know you you can't choose or pick who you goes there but if you have a system where these developers come in and you make with them and say because they don't have to follow the guidelines of the state say to them you want to build in Chelsea okay make it 100% actually affordable
for the people of Chelsea and give them 100% priority to go to those buildings >> counselor >> that you just hit four minutes. I just want to kind of flag that for you. >> Can I do four minutes already? >> Yep. >> Uh yep. Just want to >> All right, that's fine. No more. You know the question. Can I just get one
one more thing? >> I will give you 10 seconds to frame the question. Yes. >> The the whole point I'm trying to make is remember what affordable housing actually means. Think about it. >> Is it affordable for you? >> I don't know. >> Thank you, counselor. >> Sorry. I I I want to add one thing which
is uh um the counselor is right. Right. So, so, so these these affordable housing projects, they get state money and therefore have to follow state rules, right? So, so places like Penrose that is building a soldiers home, places like TND that that has several projects
uh uh they they have to abide by state law. We uh uh I saw some commentary online of 55 Herz Street, right? 55 Hz Street was a project that the city council approved with city money, right? And and that is going to be the first time that we are going to run a process
for Chelsea people only. We Chelsea people only and and and the only reason why we could do that right is because we are uh using Chelsea money. Now I shared earlier that 12 units were built in the last five years through inclusionary
zoning, right? We just did six with one project using Chelsea money. What if what if we could generate revenue that when homes go into receiverhip like this one? This was a very unique opportunity, right? It was a house that was lost. It
was a house that was going to go in open bid. And we heard loudly from our housing advocates. We heard loudly from our community that the city when that happens, the city should step in. We should not allow the housing to go on the open market. And we agree. This
council agreed, right? and we found the money in order to buy one project that at one time built the equivalent of what the inclusionary zoning has done in five years. What if we had another $1.8
million generated by this this this this initiative that could buy another property going into receiverhip. But I will tell you councilors that we don't have the option if we don't have any money. >> Thank you Mr. Manager. I'm gonna go to councelor de Jesus, then myself, then councelor tes, and then councelor
Robinson. Apologies, councelor. >> Thank you, Mr. President. I want to piggy off of what you just mentioned, city manager. I am assuming but would love for you to clarify that we are also I mean with the cases of code violations in the city. If there's one thing for
sure, Chelsea has a lot of code violations and so there should be a lot of fees attached to those code violations and there should be a lot of revenue coming in from those code violations where landlords are held accountable so on so forth. I'm assuming that there that might be also another
source of a pot of money that can be used for either the anti-displacement um systems that we want in to maintain in our community um or potentially connecting that with our CPA funds and the affordable housing or getting
creative and even using some of the um historical preservation if there are properties that would fit that criteria, right? Um, so I'm wondering that I'm also wondering what other growth >> hustle are we doing, right? Aside from development,
>> are we looking into more of those um or share with me what currently we're doing aside from development? Um, and you know, one of my biggest concerns, and I'll wrap it up up with that, is One North, you mentioned doesn't have any
vacancies, but One North is literally what I was living next to about a year and a half ago when I was still a renter in Chelsea. My neighbors had at least six units occupied by seasonal students that were coming in to just go to school, right?
>> They didn't take part in the community. They weren't really engaged. They barely knew who I was. Um there there needs to be a balance of the number of units that we're building so that we can make sure that we are reflective of the community that we're serving. Right. Absolutely.
>> Children uh two three bedrooms obviously for our families to be able to those who are not below that threshold if they're if they're like me and my fiance who were working Monday through Sunday, you know, maybe they can jump into one of those units and make their way to home ownership.
>> Absolutely. >> Yeah. Absolutely agree. I got I couldn't agree with more with everything you said. >> I just want to add you illust just add it to exactly what you said. You illustrated a $6 million increase to the schools, >> right, >> council? Yeah. >> I'm I'm sorry. I'm just >> Yep. Just if you want to just one
sentence and I will >> Yeah, that's it. You just million dollar increase to the schools >> and to just to add to her question. What other the the housing thing can't fill the gap, right? So what other >> Yeah. Thank you. >> For sure. For sure. So, I I I I'll say a
few things, right? The the uh 55 Hz Street again, right, is all three bedrooms, right? All threebedroom units. It's amazing, right? And and I am very glad that this council supported the purchase of of this very unique opportunity, right? But those code
violations sometimes leads to the city putting host homes in receiverhip, right? And they are the type of homes, type of units that that that we are looking for. two bedrooms, three bedrooms uh uh opportunities, right? I I
I am going to tour uh uh 55 Hz Street. I know uh uh uh we are creating a a virtual uh uh tour for for our residents. Uh um it is definitely the kind of project that we are doing. Absolutely. But again, I will I will reiterate counselor as this chart shows
inclusionary zone is not creating those units. Right. We have built 12 units in the last five years. So, so while I I completely appreciate that that we got to be doing this, this ain't it right now. With regards to other other growth hustles, you and I counselor, we talk a
lot about this, right? And I'm glad that you keep bringing up flat iron because that is something that we absolutely got to pull, right? We we are we we absolutely we we are working on a parking garage on Eastern Avenue that is going to create a tremendous amount of revenue, right? We are working on
several other initiatives uh around that corridor that are going to create another initiative. We we talked about market basket right as as a potential potential. We we we we had many conversations on on with with the neighborh Bunker Hill right we we are are are
trying to hustle as much as possible. This is not our our only hustle, but this has to be part of the equation, right? Because Flat Iron takes a long time to build, right? Flat Iron was fully approved by the planning board
last year and is going to go online. The first money that we're going to get from Flat Iron is going to be in 2029, right? So, so these these big big big investments, they are beautiful and and they are wonderful, but they take a a lot of time to build, right? So, in the
meantime, we we can't rest in our laurels and say, uh, we're only going to focus on one thing. We got to focus on all of it. >> Thank you, Mr. Manager. Um, all right. So, I have myself, Councelor Tesh, Councelor Robinson, Councelor Taylor, and then councelor Hines, just to make sure everybody knows what the order is.
Um, and then councelor Garcia after. Great. Um, so my question is, so this proposal is pretty much only loosening requirements, right? They have been called guard rails, right? and then just hoping that it works, right? I I'm curious if there are changes that could
be made to this policy that instead of just loosening requirements would instead create a policy that incentivizes the development that more adequately meets the needs of Chelsea families. I've heard a lot of concern that I share, right, that a lot of the development that's happening is all
single bedroom, single, single bedroom, right, studio apartment, studio apartment, right, which doesn't meet the needs of the community, right? The community needs more two bedrooms, needs three bedrooms. So I'm curious if there is any way to use inclusionary zoning to instead of kind of loosening
essentially creating pathways to incentivize those two and three families that are needed more so than the one or studio in Chelsea. >> Sure. I mean I I I have not seen uh and and we talked about this on on other projects in terms of like making
requirements to build bigger units. It is something that comes up in in the planning board and zoning board a lot. Right. And it is part of this discussion that we have in the approval process. Right. So so so that is that is something that that we happen the most creative uh uh zoning or ordinance that
I've seen to date is Everitz right and it has multiple multiple offramps if you will right and and the biggest one is that it it does as you said right create this incentive if you meet the requirements of inclusionary zoning we will grant to you dimensional variances.
Right. that is not something that that is before the council today. Uh and I don't I don't think that the council is is ready to have that conversation, but I I could be wrong. >> Yeah. Just really quick just quick comment on that. I think that that is a way to make sure that we're not just, you know, the developers are telling us
this, so we're just going to give it to them, right? It's making sure that we're being thoughtful about what it is that we want to use policy to incentivize. Developing affordable housing was the intent of this. It didn't work. Can it be used for other purposes? And I think that's where my question lands. So, I want to um >> Yeah. Yeah. And I'll just say that that
uh uh councelor Sanagate's uh thought was was was very uh thoughtful. Right. Absolutely. The this this policy hasn't been changed since 2019. And the only change in 2019 to my knowledge is we increased the fee up. Right. It hasn't been changed since 2019. So, so you're
you're right. It is time. It is time to to dust it up. Give it give it a whirl. And you could change the ordinance to say we will review this in one year. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Manager. Councelor Tesa. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh Mr. City
Manager, are we taking any interest in pursuing commercial development? I feel like, you know, all the conversation we're having right now is heavily residential. Uh what are new initiatives the city is doing to try to incentivize commercial and whether or not that would bring, you know, a bigger source of
revenue than residential? >> Yes, sir. Yes, we we are we are pursuing uh uh many things on on the commercial end. I I mentioned a couple flat iron. I mentioned uh I I mentioned the the the parking garage that that we are are are in discussions with. Market basket has a
commercial component to it and that is key, right? Uh we want to create uh uh uh a lot more uh restaurants, a lot more restaurants in in the area. Uh um so so yes, we are pursuing commercial. We are not only pursuing residential.
Thank you. Um the last question for me would be, you know, uh when when I'm looking at all your prop proposals, I'm I'm going to be straight up. Um I would would not accept all of them. Um and I would probably not accept them as they are at this moment. Uh I would ask, you know, can can we work out in terms of
maybe potentially bringing down the amount of percentages units uh percentage of units this applies to down from 15% to 10%. uh you know potentially I think you know we could definitely entertain changing the payment in loop to to 100,000 but probably not going
from 10 units to 100 units when when we talk about uh changing the regulations. Um would would you be willing to rework the proposal you have currently submitted to the council so that at least we can conscientiously approve something that we feel okay with >> 100% counselor and that is the intent of
this conversation right that that uh uh that we want to have a thoughtful conversation where where we where we do have you know a um conversation around this and and honestly that we have a conversation with our community right and and and we share that that this is a
very very tough issue just like the school budget issue was, right? I remember that I spoke to many many many of these counselors, right? And and and many of them had concern about the number of layoffs that were happening in the school department,
right? That was a crisis. That was what that is what brought this this proposal before us, right? Uh I I and and that feeling that you had of dread, that feeling that that you had of desperation that I I this is the feeling that I want to share with our community. Unless we
make a change, those feelings are going to continue and they are going to get worse. We are not going to be able to fund our schools. We are not going to be able to fund our city services unless we make a drastic change. So, so uh uh to answer your question, counselor, of
course, uh I I I we have several conversations already scheduled uh uh with with with our our our uh community partners, uh we have conversations scheduled uh um with the city councilors and we will absolutely revise this proposal to to a a a middle
ground, if you will. >> Thank you, Mr. Manager. Uh I have Council Robinson. I know we we we talked about duel and we did give them a tip um for their project and you have to remember the h those
units on Central Avenue were built in 1950. The state has zero dollars for maintenance to be able to upgrade those units. being able to for Cochran to come in to do this development, they had to replace
the 96 units and then in in that development there were four four bedroomedroom units they had to replace four bedroomedroom units. So whatever the number of units were so if there were 23 threebedroom units or more they had to be re re-replaced. The other
initiative that they did was 40 of those units were >> workforce development units that was geared towards city hall employees, policemen, teachers. Um, and 96 people were never displaced.
>> They were all relocated somewhere. They had the opportunity to come back to the development. >> They also have free parking. Um, so those are the kinds of things that we need to be looking at and being creative with. Um, you know, and in order for one
housing authority unit, >> you need two market rate units to support that unit. That's right. >> To be affordable for >> That's right. >> our residents. >> Absolutely. No, and I want >> make that clear. >> I want to emphasize, counselor, that I am proud of Duo. Duo received an award
uh uh uh recently by Co-Star which is which is a national publication right Duo is an amazing project and and it was the first in the state right that that transformed uh really old so so when you look at the goals of inclusionary zoning
right uh uh Duo achieved all of them right do achieved all of the goals of inclusionary zoning without being being applicable to inclusionary zoning which tells you that there is way to achieve the goals that that that were set forth
in 2017 and make this change, right? Uh uh Duo um uh is a beautiful project. It is a transformational project. It it and and it took all levels. We have another conversation happening right now in Prattville where we are looking to
replicate this same project. Right. Uh uh I I I hope this the city council approves the 40R zoning which is is is is another step right. We we uh we are working really really hard at educating our residents at at at doing community outreach doing it right the first time
right at at having conversations with every resident. But I I I will say that that uh uh while it is a conversation that we're going to have uh uh most likely that project will need to have all hands on deck when it comes to
making the math work. >> I'm so glad I'm going to jump in just real quickly because Done did it. Done >> one sentence and then I have to go to councelor Taylor. >> Yes, please. So, I just I'm so glad you brought that up, counselor, because I feel like that dual apartments is the perfect example because although it
wasn't the first redevelopment mixeduse um model in the state, it was awarded and recognized because of the community input on the decision-making table. That is really where where the key award or the key uniqueness of that project came from is the fact that at that time
collaborative okay at that time was working with the tenants and they were on the table and negotiations had to happen. We weren't always happy right then but we need to do that again on the table. >> Shout out do we're going to do it again. >> Sorry I one statement one thought
please. Councelor Taylor I >> thank you. >> Thank you. So, so I I've got actually a couple things to say because I've got like rebuttals against like a lot of different things that are being said here, but
I think we're conflating two things. We are conflating the issue of affordable housing with the inclusionary zoning. The inclusionary zoning, correct me if I'm wrong, the inclusionary zoning
amendment is an abject failure. >> How many go back to this thing about how many units were actually built? >> 12 in the five years. >> 12 in five years. >> So So what are you losing folks? What
are you losing? It is unbelievable. You're getting rid of a bad amendment that is that is putting up a major roadblock in our way of making money. And you know, I I got to say there's a
lot of people in this community that want their cake and to eat it, too. They want it both ways without without uh without having to pay for anything. That that like, you know, the money grows on a money tree. It doesn't it doesn't work like that.
>> So So what's before us is to get rid of this or or to you know drastically amend this this amendment which is going to help our community. Um,
the second thing I wanna I wanna I want to zero in on is the amount of affordable housing that Chelsea has. I mean, the last time I checked, and I
correct me if I'm wrong, we are we are at least in the top three of affordable housing. We may even be number one. Uh, I think the last time I checked it was number two. of of the number of affordable housing
units of all 351 cities and towns in the Commonwealth. Okay. So, what does that tell you? All of this is about going forward, right? So, this doesn't change anything
for the amount of affordable units that are here. The people that are here, they get to stay in their affordable units. Nothing's going to change, right? Except we're going to have more money
for different kinds of things. People have been trying to get a community center, right? People People trying to get all kinds of different things, programs that actually help people, right? We're not going to be able to
have any of that unless we do this. This is going to open the way for us to build a sound economic engine that's going to provide enough money for our community. Yeah, it will.
>> We'll see. I'll bet you. >> So, so look. So, look, my my point is you you're you're stipulating that that that is indeed the the the situation that we're we are in. >> Absolutely. >> Right. So, so
this isn't going to displace anybody, right? It's actually going to get more people to come to Chelsea to pull the cart. We're going to have more people actually pulling the cart so we can actually go
forward, right? We're not going to have too many people riding in the cart. We got to have people pulling pulling the cart. So, council, I'm not stopping you from speaking, but just want to flag that we've reached four minutes. So, yeah.
>> So, can I please get a get a get an answer about is is more people coming in the new people, right, that are coming in at market rate. That's going to balance out what we're talking about here economically. Correct. what we the
argument that I'm making to this council and and I'm making to the entire community is is that um we need to balance growth with affordability. We have to do both, right? And and that requires very very difficult conversations and and and uh as as you
as you said, counselor, we cannot fund uh the programs that that we have and the programs that we want to fund without any new money. >> And and would you would you characterize us as balanced right now? Right now we are on a cliff and and we are driving and and and I am very afraid that we're
going to fly off the car off the cliff. >> Thank you. >> So I have councelor Hines, councelor Garcia, Tash and Rupra. >> I just want to add that all of these conversations are related to one another. The chart I believe in the hallway illustrates how commercial and
we know commercial developments generates more revenue. As um councelor Robinson had asked his question about bringing the WNBA training facility here, I just want to remind everybody that we had a commercial project go through the pipeline, meet all
requirements, and for some reason still get denied to to attribute to the the income that the city is trying to generate. I also want in response to what councelor Taylor said, 22 properties were developed using the
inclusionary zoning policy as stated in this development. 125 units were developed from people ducking out on the inclusionary zoning policy. >> So developing nine units or less, right?
So if any one of those developers in not trying to game us, we would have generated some property utilizing the inclusionary zoning policy. But because people are ducking it, that is like where our challenge is
right now. So speculatively, if we moved the needle from 10 units to 100 units, none of them would have been inclusionary zoning. So realistically like what is the number we're looking for because 100 is not >> Yeah. Yeah. No, I I agree with that.
Right. I mean and and you're absolutely right. Whatever the threshold we set, right? Uh uh it is going to be easier for developers to t to come in just below the threshold. As a counterpoint, we could lower the threshold to four units, right? We can make it more stringent. But what will happen is that
we will get a lot of developments three units or less. Right? So, so what I am arguing to this council is that we should raise that raise that threshold and generate the growth that we need at this time. If one year from now the
economy looks a little different, if one year from now the amount of projects that have been permitted look a little different, the council may may choose to revert that decision. Right? And that is something that we can write into the ordinance that instead of reviewing it every five years, the council is required to review it every one year. That that is something that that we can
write into the order. I I have talked about uh about uh uh uh uh to the the counselors about about sure about uh having having something a little bit more sensible. I I I do recognize that that 100 uh might seem like a little bit
too too drastic of a move. So, so uh uh uh to to uh echo councelor Tesh's comment, uh uh we will formulate as a team and return to the city council with a proposal that that is that takes all of the feedback into account.
>> I'd also just like to add um when it comes to uh the AMI and what it is that people pay for rent, um Thank you. Um, even if even if the the
bar is moved to 80% area median income, if people are in these units paying more than 30% of their income on any of these units, then they're not considered affordable. >> So, I I um I recognize that the intention of the of of the first
inclusionary uh zoning, right, was to create deeply affordable units. I recognize that, right? That that is what what what we said when we said we're going to set the the rate, right? But hopefully, as I proven to you tonight, right, it is not working. What is happening is people are coming in nine
units or less as as was you what you said, counselor, and are and are gaming us. I forget what word you used. >> That's exactly what I said, >> but it was it was very very very apt, right? So 74% of our of the applications that we're getting are for nine units or
less, right? So, so, so it is like like making a toll and everybody's just going underneath, right? Or or or the train example, right? So, so I I will say that that part of my return to the city council is going to mirror some of the stuff that is in Everett, right? Which
which which creates this this option, right? So, and Everett and Everett acknowledges this this this concept of of deeper affordability than 80%, right? And what they say is basically is 10% of the units at 80% AMI or 7% of the units
are at 60% AMI, right? And and it is ide this this idea of of compromise. >> Just for clarification that that would be sliding the scale a bit, right? So right now we're at 30 50 80 for our tiers. Everett has a model that's 60 80.
So >> you're suggesting we slide the scale. I am suggesting that we make drastic changes to create new growth council. >> Okay. But without the elimination of all the tiers, you're suggesting we slide it a little >> according to you know you to house
firefighters, police officers, workforce development or whatever we >> middle income individuals rather than eliminate all tiers and go straight for the 80%. slide eight. Middle income is not
$92,000. >> Um, just is there a question? I just want to kind of wrap. >> Was that was the question? >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Sorry. >> No, no. I I I'm just I I know I know it doesn't have to be a question. I just We're at five minutes and I just want to make sure if if you're done with your comment. >> Five minutes. Wow.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No. And we can come back to you. I just want to make sure that we Yeah. Are you all set? >> Yeah. >> Great. Councelor Garcia, then councelor Tesh, and then councelor Okubra. >> Um, I feel like we are on the hot seat right now, right? The school committee
was a uh week a few weeks ago and we're here, right? Um, constituents have asked and have commented that just like the school admin, they question your administration, right? Sure. Um we've
approved many many uh new seats in your administration. We are trusting your administration. >> Uh and we have been really open to approvals. Everything has been yeses. Right. We are trusting that you will
guide us in the right direction. Um and development has to be aligned with community values and sustainability for the long haul, right? >> Long. >> Uh I just hope that the developers that
come to the city see the values of Chelsea, right? And I'm not saying that things can't change. Obviously, the inclusionary zoning did not work and we do need to change it and it has to change ASAP.
>> Um, but also I feel like residents feel like we're rushing things and things shouldn't of this nature shouldn't be rushed without these conversation happening. >> Um, I also want to uh my my colleague
mentioned um one north. I've had a different experience with one north. I've um I've actually been able to um the property manager if you reach um them they are open to having
community events in their building which is something beautiful that I've experienced myself. So, um I just feel like everyone should input in in this change
with with a an extensive community engagement. >> Absolutely. I'm open for development, but I'm also open to having um our residents in mind, making sure that our families are being taken care of, and
having a happy medium. I know it's hard because obviously we don't make the average Boston salary. We don't. Our families do not make that. And that's why we subleasase and we have apartments with onebedroom
with a five five member family in a onebedroom. >> Um I just hope you guide us in the right direction. >> Yes. >> But we do need to engage in a longterm the long-term sustainability and our community values.
That's all that's all I >> I agree with everything you said councelor. >> All right. Let's go to councelor Tesh and then I have recuper Taylor. >> This is a response to um what councelor Taylor stated in terms of uh you know
that this change would probably save uh residents of Chelsea, current residents of Chelsea. Um I would say that's contrary entirely to what the purpose of this change is, which is to again earn a little more revenue and that's totally understandable. I would ask, if we
approve this and you see new construction, where are you going to build it? You're going to tell me there's new spots in Chelsea that I have not seen. You're going to build them where they're currently housing current residents of Chelsea. Where are they
going to move? What happens when a building burns down? Do the do the families stay in Chelsea? No, they do not. They move out of Chelsea. So, I just want to make sure and clarify that this proposal does not do what you said it does. Councelor Taylor,
>> can I can I just respond to that? >> Look, look, what you just said was 100% absolutely wrong. We don't tear down existing housing unless we're going to unless we're going to build something that replaces those units.
>> No, like Duo, right, >> guys? Please chair. No back. Wait a minute. This is this is >> it's okay. You you you you can you can respond. He mentioned your name. You have the time to respond. >> So look uh most of this is not going to affect
anybody who lives in Chelsea. This is for bringing new people into Chelsea. And so we're talking about we're talking about people that don't live here yet. We have over 20% of our
housing is affordable. That's like double the the the state average. We're we are at the top of the list for for the amount of affordable housing we have. You cannot have that percentage of of your housing be affordable without
economic repercussions. So what we're saying is we need to rebalance, get some more income coming in so that we can pay for all the other people that are occupying the affordable housing. We
only make this much in taxes on affordable market rate. We make this much. So So if we want enough money, the city manager himself said it. So this has nothing to do or very little
to do with existing residents. I I hear about our communities worried. Are why are they worried? Th this is this is going to this is going to affect people that don't live here yet. Thank you. Councelor Councelor Raupro.
Sorry. I I have recuper and then Taylor again unless you're and then I can >> um council please go ahead. >> Okay. >> We're going back to the same thing over and over and over.
>> I'm back. You saying I'm I'm being redundant. I'm going Well, what is affordable? What is affordable? That's what I want to know. You keep fighting for affordable. What is it? Okay, here's what we do. The next meeting we have, we like the city manager to actually
explain to us how many affordable units are actually occupied by average Chelsea people. The ones THAT ARE NOT SUBSIDIZED, THOSE ARE THE ONES you want to put in these units. It's people that ARE NOT SUBSIDIZED. STOP TALKING ABOUT
affordable subsidized housing because when you have affordable SUBSIDIZED HOUSING, YOU CAN GO ANYWHERE YOU WANT TO. THE PROBLEM is not how much affordable housing we have. The city manager told you himself. The average in
the state is 10% 12% of affordable housing. This city has gone above and beyond. It's 22%. SO IN 22% with other affordable housing we and there's more PEOPLE HERE. WE SHOULD MAKE MORE MONEY. WHY ARE WE MAKING LESS MONEY? He explained to you
again affordable housing doesn't pay the same revenue. What it does is IT PUTS IT ON YOUR TENANTS. THE TENANTS, I'm repeating myself again, THE TENANTS WILL HAVE TO PAY THE DIFFERENCE. If you don't live in an affordable housing unit AND YOU WANT TO have more cops, more
firefighters, more schools, WHERE IS THE TAXES COMING FROM? WHERE YOU THINK THE TAXES ARE COMING FROM? THEY'RE COMING FROM YOU, the renters. SO, WHAT YOU ACTUALLY DOING when you build MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, YOU'RE GENTRIFYING. You're getting RID OF THE POPULATION THAT'S HERE AND YOU'RE BRINGING ANOTHER
POPULATION in that can't afford these units. The average income of a Chelsea resident is $40,000. IF YOU RENT a three-bedroom apartment, it's $3,000. THAT'S $30,000. HOW DO YOU WANT TO LIVE WITH 10,000? SO, WHERE IS YOUR AFFORDABILITY? TELL THE TRUTH. I'M SICK
AND TIRED OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AFFORDABLE HOUSING. TELL THE TRUTH. TELL WHAT affordable housing ACTUALLY IS. IT'S NOT AFFORDABLE FOR THE AVERAGE INDIVIDUAL. >> You know, THAT'S THAT'S THE PART THAT I CAN'T UNDERSTAND. They keep repeating
that. one is I'm going back to it again. When you It's nice to have affordable housing unit. >> Counselor, I As long as we're I feel like you're repeating. >> No, I'm not repeating. I'm going to I'm going to explain. >> Please go ahead. >> It's nice to have affordable housing units, but it's also nice for the city
to make money. Without money, you can't have all the things you want. You can't have food banks. You can't have warm incentives. You can't have anything because you have no money. Where's the money going to come from? So that is the biggest issue what they doing here. I
don't know how's it going to be worse or better. I don't know. I was like I told you earlier, I was here when they did it. From the figures that he gave me, it didn't work. It hasn't worked. So I don't know. I I don't know what the what is it. The only thing I keep hearing is affordable housing. And the the point I
want to make again is affordable for who? >> All right. I think um just to I I think councelor Ruper has brought this point up a couple of times and I think it might be helpful to maybe lay out those terms and like what they mean for everybody. um maybe not right
this moment but at some point kind of laying out like what is subsidized and you know kind of like how does this all work in terms of like the AMI to make sure that everybody's kind of using the same terminology so that my understanding of the counselor's point is affordable housing can mean many things to different people so how are we
defining it so that we can have the same conversation all right um I am going to now go to councelor Hines >> and then I have councelor Taylor and then councelor Brown >> I want to say I appreciate your clarification of that because affordable Housing is most definitely subjective. I want to say duo has been mentioned quite
a few times, but the market rate units in Duo for a twobedroom is north of three grand. Just just for clarifying those numbers right now. And again, affordable to who? And affordable
to new people. But again, if it's 30% of your income, I don't know if it's necessarily considered affordable. However, I I want to get to your proposed amendments so that we can actually jump into what it is we're here
to discuss. >> Um, even though we're here to discuss all of this because it's all very nuanced and layered and complex, >> right? So like in in changing the policy again I asked but
I don't I don't know if we got an answer what what are the units how many units are being developed now like realistically right or I know we're and we're talking about a lot of different projects I know at the end of
your proposal was mentioning like the overlay district and like Right. So, like what is the number that we're we're trying to get to? What makes sense? What preserves and protects from displacement
while also like uh uh being sub being substantial enough to actually maybe make an impact. >> For sure. For sure. Um you know, I I I attracting development is is like uh
like um catching a bird from the sky, right? and and and there's a saying a bird in hand is worth more than two in the bush or something like that, right? So I I can't tell you what is going to be filed, right? What is coming? We have many conversations going on right now in
terms of projects that are that we are working on, right? Uh uh um and I do hope that they do come to permits before the zoning board. I will also tell you that right now I think this month and the month before there has been zero applications to the zoning board and the
planning board. So right now the well is dry. There is no apartments, no permits before the planning board and zoning board. Right. So so so right now we it is again drastic crisis situation. >> So so the goal is to move the needle to
100 and see what we catch >> that that is the proposal. uh uh that that I initially uh uh submitted. I I I did hear from council Teshi and and I heard from many of the counselors a a desire to to to bring back a a revised
proposal to the city council that that reduces the amount from 100 to a lesser number. I did hear that and and you know I do think that gradual change is is is good. I I am glad that the council acknowledges that that there is a change needed. Uh and and and I appreciate the
council uh uh wanting to see a gradual change. >> You can Yeah, you can follow up if you'd like quick. regarding the payment in loo. Um rather than I know we need money to to operate a lot of different city
services and per my my understanding uh the the funds will go towards those anti-displacement um social services and wraparound services that we currently have and operate the warming center as you mentioned.
>> That's right. uh your proposal is like a 75% decrease in what it stands and I feel the 400 acted as maybe a barrier and a deterrent >> right >> but like a middle ground 200 >> absolutely and and I'll tell the council
that that uh the uh original proposal that was uh uh approved in 2017 had that number right and and we just didn't give it uh it was it was a little bit too much right uh we didn't give it a chance to breathe. Uh I think dialing it back
to the amount of the 2017 uh uh uh original proposal would be a good idea along with other changes, right? That cannot be the only change done. >> Okay. And before I know it's going to go to councelor Brown, I'd like to ask you know that we consider like a 24month
>> you said that. >> No, it's okay. I'd like to ask that we we we discuss like a 24-month review of this, of any changes that we make to this so that we can come back and evaluate what is going on, how many units are being developed, what
displacement is taking place, if rent prices are raising for other individuals to so that we can like keep an eye on this outside of a fiveyear mark when everybody's already gone. And it and I will piggyback counselor that that I would love nothing more than to come before this council and say it worked.
We have new growth. Our new growth numbers look like river, right? I I I would love nothing more than to come back and say good news to the counselor at at in 24 months. >> So I I have councelor Taylor, councelor Brown, De Jesus, and Garcia before that. I can stay here as long as the council
wants to be here. But we are past 8 PM. I just want to make sure that folks understand what we can do, what our options are if we want to continue this conversation at another time. I think we should get through these four speakers regardless. But our opt our first option is to essentially continue this meeting,
right? We then would reschedu would schedule another time for us to come back and continue this conversation. The other one is to essentially finalize a recommendation to send back to the main council meeting at which point we could decide whether to send it to planning,
send it to, you know, another subcommittee or just kill it and and then we're all done. Um I think kind of my inclination, you know, Rome was not built in a day. Um so I think it might be worth tableabling this conversation um so that we can reconvene with
partners, community members and so on. we can have conversations with people and then come back once we have more information from everybody else. Um I'm just putting that out there. I think we should get through the next four speakers and then after that I will entertain motions to do anything. >> I will say council president uh um I I I
do not suggest tableabling anything. I I think that that the the uh the the time to act is now as as we saw with the school committee budget, right? Uh we we acted very very very quickly and and and moved a lot of things around very very quickly. This is a similar a similar crisis.
>> Thank you, Mr. Manager. Uh, Councelor Taylor and then Councelor Brown. >> So, just to be clear, okay, we need some affordable housing. We have more than almost anyone else in the state. Okay, we have that. We've done
that. We've taken care of a good portion of our community who needs it. So my whole point and that I want to throw this idea out because I saw what happened with Duo. I
see what's going to happen in Prattville, the state, which means the Democrat governor of this state is is all gung-ho for this uh model of development to go forward. this
marriage of public and private in order to pay for uh housing authority units to help those poor people that need that. Right. That that is any anything I said
incorrect? >> We are moving forward with the proposal in Prattville very very aggressively. >> But but but this is kind of the new model of of what's kind of being pushed on a on a statewide level. Correct. I I hope so.
>> Okay. So, my point is as as the Chelsea Housing Authority loses some of these units to Corkran or whoever's going to be running the the
the the affordable units there. We're acquiring things like Herd Street. >> So, people wanted to think outside the box about how we provide affordable housing to people. This is my suggestion. We we consider because the Chelsea
Housing Authority has something that TND doesn't have and that is they can have a Chelsea preference and that's the whole problem. When we have affordable units come up through inclusionary zoning or whatever, we're getting new people coming in.
We're not taking care of the people here. So, I think that it might behoove us to think about this. They also have a veterans preference. So why can't we instead of instead of uh uh
putting all this energy into what we're doing now, which which I don't think has really worked that well since we find ourselves in this economic situation. Why wouldn't we try to replenish some of
the Chelsea Housing Authorities stuff? Move more of the what we're doing in affordable housing as far as, you know, developers coming in or whatever over there where there's more guard rails. There is a Chelsea preference. We can
actually take care of the people that we have in Chelsea. the constituents that you're all concerned about are taken care of and we can get the development, the new development coming in to actually fill our coffers so we have
money for a comm community center, money for all the nonprofits that have all their programs, right? So, you want to think outside the box. This is thinking outside the box. Use what works here. The Chelsea Housing
Authority has more tools in its toolbox to deal with this situation than we do as a city and just telling developers, "Oh, you have to have this." I mean, I I honestly believe that that
we could do something like that and still service the same amount of people that we're doing now, but we're making smarter economic decisions to to actually make money so we have money to spend on important things in our city that we
need, including an extra $10 million for the school right when we needed Right? >> Because if we if we go down this road or if we water down whatever I mean all you guys have to do is talk to developers
and they will tell you why they don't you cannot force people to come in and develop. I have talked to developers about why aren't why aren't you coming in here? It's because of the inclusionary zoning. Why doesn't have this? It's because they don't have it. I
mean it's very simple. Why are why are the units coming in at nine units instead of 10? That's why. So guys, it's it's a simple I mean it's clear if you want if you want to to solve this
problem and still get the economic bang and not put anybody out and provide what we need to have. I think looking at a situation where we involve the Chelsea Housing Authority in more of these uh affordable u or what we call affordable
units is a better way to go and it's and it's and it makes a lot more economic sense. >> Thank you. >> Do do you have any comment on that? I will say that um inclusionary zoning and hope I hope the data that we have reviewed uh in detail today shows you
that inclusionary zoning is not creating affordable units in Chelsea, right? In the last 5 years, we have built 12 units, right? That we we we thought outside the box with 55 Hz Street, it was going to be a six unit building that had three-bedroom units, right? and and
instead of putting it in into the open market and going to the highest bidder, we stepped in, the council stepped in, right? And and and took this unit into market and with one decision, you did half of what the inclusionary zoning has done in five years, right? If you do
that twice in five years, we'll do the same thing. >> Right? So, so we can achieve the same thing with with with thinking outside the box. >> Thank you, Mr. Manager. Uh, Councelor Brown, >> I just wanted to say that uh, I came here with an open mind to talk about
what's hindering our current zoning um, proposals and opportunities and talk about what type of strategies we like to have forward moving forward. So, I ask that we can consider just talking directly about any changes we want to
make in the proposal that we received. I believe it was on the 18th. um at our meeting with the city manager's proposals of what he would like to see or what he was proposing, we can make those changes. Um if not, um table the
meeting and have it at the next meeting for a vote. >> Thank you, councelor. Councelor Deesus and then councelor Garcia and then councelor and then councelor Alison. >> Thank you, Mr. President. So, um I want to just give one more statement. And I
don't want this to turn into a duo conversation, but I want to be mindful that we Duo has a lot of tenant protections because of the tenants that were on the decision-making table. That's right. >> A lot of those tenant protections
protections did not happen in Boston, did not happen in Lynn, and we saw people not have the right to return to those redeveloped properties. We saw people displaced due to new policies that were implemented in Chelsea. Thanks to our local nonprofits and the tenants
that organize themselves and build tenant associations, that was not the case. I am hoping that this happens again in Prattville so that we can continue that model that has gotten prized and and um a lot of recognition. But I don't want to monopolize our um
affordable housing units and I also don't want to segregate our families in Chelsea. >> I want to make sure that this community continues to be a blended community where yes, we welcome all but it's not
certain parts of the city are uh welcoming to the poor and others are not. And so I want to make sure that as we talk about thinking outside the box >> that we continue to implement these structures and these tenant protections that took a long time and a lot of conversations, a lot of heavy
conversations when we were working with the duo property. Um, city manager, I would love for you to walk us through in just simple terms, speedy Gonzalez style for our viewers at home and anyone who's in the chamber how this policy is sort of like an
umbrella. So, I have folks reaching out and saying, "Is this my district? Is are we talking about district three? Is this going to be in the shortlive area?" And I'm I'm curious or or just hopeful that you can maybe give a a small pres a brief um explanation of of the process
of how where these developments or where this policy change would impact the city. >> Sure. The the the inclusionary zoning uh is a citywide policy. So, so, so, so it is something that that uh is implemented all all throughout, right? The the um
the proposal that is before the city council does not include on purpose the the the waiverss that are granted in Everett. So, so in Everett, it basically says if you uh meet inclusionary zoning, then you don't have to go through the
permitting process, right? I I I I uh understand how that would be beneficial, right, to to to uh uh create development. I I I I do understand that that would be an incentive. That is not something that that that is is before before you and that was intentional
because we do want to create this public process where where where people can come and and comment on development that people can come before the boards that people can can can go through through the zoning process. So, so that process will not change and and we have seen
that those process can be effective in changing projects. sometimes too effective because they get denied. But but uh uh it can be effective in in in speaking with with developers, getting concessions, creating different different views of the project because
at the end of the day uh uh developers are going to work with the community. I believe as much as possible to to uh get a project that that that is liked by everybody and gets approved. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Sorry, Mr. President. Can I just real one thought?
>> Yep. All those duo apartments were totally integrated there. There there was no segregation there at all. So I don't Okay. >> Well, what are you talking about? >> Through the sorry property, >> guys. Please. No, >> nobody's advocating any kind of segregation.
>> Councelor Taylor and councelor Deus, please. We are trying >> That's a straw man argument. Nobody's suggesting that. >> Okay. I Thank you. Uh I want to go to councelor Garcia, councelor Tesh, and then Robinson. Um, real quick, since we're talking about um, thinking outside the box and and just getting creative
with what um, land parcel that we have available here in the city, uh, I was thinking and brainstorming by myself and I I um I thought about Admiral's Hill and Signature Bread
>> and the zoning is industrial, right? Unfortunately, is there a way we can change that? >> Yeah. >> And create a commercial residential area where the whole city can enjoy but also connect to Everett's plan >> and think completely outside the box but
neighboring and and mirroring what's going on in Everett because I I also feel like yes, we we are a unique community. We are a hardworking community, but we deserve to beautify our city and we des we deserve a
something like Assembly Square. Why not? We deserve something beautiful. And I know a lot of our community members leave the city to visit other cities and leave their money to enjoy these beautiful areas. Why can't Chelsea have
that? And that's my Yes. I I want our families to be integrated in everything. Um, but I also feel like we need to continue to beautify Chelsea and be also inviting to new neighbors,
>> but making sure that we make a top priority not displacing and integrating our families. That's all. >> I couldn't agree with you more, counselor. uh uh as part of our master planning process, we we have a few areas that that that we are looking to do exactly that, right? If I could
replicate what's happening on Sheriff Aav to Ever Avenue, right? Where where where it becomes, you know, more attractive to walk where where you don't feel like you're walking through a parking lot, right? Uh uh that is that is what we are trying to do, right? Uh uh if we if we could do that to Carrie
Square, right? And can create this this more. So yes, I I agree with you. uh restaurants bring in meal taxes, right? Uh uh uh there are uh other kinds of of taxes aside from new growth that that are generated when you bring in coffee
shops, when you bring in restaurants, those are all that they they create vibrancy, they create spaces, but they also bring in much needed revenue to the city. >> Thank you, councelor. Um I will just highlight that we have reached the last four that I had mentioned. Um, I now
have councelor Tesh Robinson and then Hines. >> I just want to say, you know, let's not call inclusionary zoning a failure because it achieved exactly what it was meant to do and that was to keep
affordable units but also protect affordability. Right? City manager has already mentioned that a lot of the projects we're getting are nine units or less. What would happen if we did not have that restriction? What big buildings would we not have in the
city that would drive up the prices? I think personally speaking, I barely made made it in terms of staying in the city. I was almost kicked out because I could not afford my rent and I keep on talking with families, my constituents telling me I cannot afford to pay the rent. And
so you push it a little more over the edge and you kick them all out virtually. So inclusionary zoning did its job and that was protecting the medium family, the household to make sure that families could stay in their
homes and send their school their kids to Chelsea public schools. I mean not not only is is ICE kicking all our families out now we're going to kick them out as well. That's why I'm calling we need to be gradual about this. We are being hit heavy every
single way we can. So again, we're going about this development. Let's be reasonable about it. I'm all in favor of making sure that, you know, we earn a little bit of money. Um, just not not too hasty and not, you know, we got to
be conscientious. >> Absolutely, Councelor. I couldn't agree with you more and and I like the approach that you're saying of of gradual gradual and uh uh if if if it is the will of the council, I I I will uh make make modifications uh maybe incorporate the the ever model. uh uh
blend it a little bit and and send it back to the council for consideration. I will say that that uh inclusionary zoning, right, did not build the affordable units that it was meant to be, right? Uh uh and and I hope that the chart before you on the screen proves that to you. Uh uh uh and and we have uh
projects, exciting, beautiful, 100% affordable projects that are coming online right now, including two that are home ownership opportunities, which I know you are uh uh very passionate about. Right. We have 150 William Street that is going to be condos for to be to be sold affordable, right? And we have a
beautiful project going up on on Broadway, 440 Broadway. Anybody that walks through through Broadway and sees that beautiful building, I I hope you see it. Wow, this could happen. We we could see more of this, right? That is exactly what I'm talking about. Those were not created through inclusionary zoning. >> Thank you, Mr. Manager. I want to go to
councelor Robinson and then councelor Hines. >> Just u some clarification. The housing authority units are 99year lease. So folks who are in those units aren't going anywhere. >> That's right. >> Okay. The soldiers home will be a
99-year lease, but it'll have a ve veterans preference. >> That's right. >> I would like to see it 100% veterans. >> I'll still advocate for that. I know that it's a strong possibility that it can't happen, but it should happen. uh
we should award those who allow us to be able to walk around in this country free. Um so therefore I think those are some important things and I've been here probably longer than anybody sitting on the council and and age
and all my life growing up here they always talked about gentrification. I've never seen it and you will not and you will not see it here. I will say counselor that that that you are right in in that um this is not about affordable housing right that
affordable housing that again that is on the screen the screen will continue to get built uh and and I I I'm repeating to the counselor that inclusionary zoning has not built affordable housing >> councelor Hines >> I just want to say people are getting priced out of this region every day but
that's not what I wanted to say um to to add again we're talking about dual often and affordability, but I have a constituent texting me right now talking about the prices of their unit in dual for two-bedroom, and I just looked it up
myself, right? And I hear many of your points. Um, I want to ask my fellow counselors like uh in regards to being a part of this process or getting more information regarding this process, do we want to
invite a developer to come and have this conversation so that you know we can get more information. >> One point of clarification counselor is that Duo is actually 30% affordable. >> Got it. >> Right. So, so, so while you're right, the market rate units are controlled by
the market, right? Uh, uh, 30% of Duo is affordable housing, right? So, so, so, so it is double the amount that is inclusionary zoning. >> And just to clarify, for any for any future meeting that we have, we can add people to the agenda and we would be
able to have additional people to speak um, on the topic, whoever the counselor the counselors want. So, just putting that out there. Um, and then the other piece is I believe the city manager is also planning on having city side conversations that are not meetings of
the council to have these conversations where I presume developers and other community partners will be at. So, I guess we have all of these options and I and I agree that it is important that we um that we have conversations with these partners um in public meetings. Um,
councelor Hines, please. Just a quick consideration in the consideration of densifying and all these developments that are coming online even with the inclusion of uh the developments on Veil Street that are staring right at us. Any
consideration and this is probably a little bit off topic but cool. We've been all over the park today. Any consideration of bringing in another grocery store or >> We have exciting news to share but not yet. All right. Thank you, Mr. Manager. I uh
guys, please um uh councelor Tesh >> um I I would just like to point out I think we we all have um next steps. Um it's it's been uh two hours and a half. I would ask you know if if the council would be willing to entertain a motion to adjurnn at this moment
>> believe the so if we want to continue the meeting it would be a motion to continue the meeting not not adjourn. Just putting that out there. If that is I just it is your motion. So I if we want to be able to continue this meeting and schedule it again, it would be a motion to continue. Motion to adjurnn would kind of mean we're done.
>> Perfect. I would I would change it then to a motion to continue. >> All right. Um do we need a second for that, Mr. Um uh I will now open for conversation on councelor Tesh's motion. Councelor Brown. >> Thank you. >> Sorry. With all due respect, we should
um first ask if the city manager by delaying it for a week or two or next meeting if it would cause any problems. I know we stated it earlier and he asks um he he spoke with some emergencies that that we should continue to try to
iron out some of the issues. Um, no one to my knowledge has really made any um made any actually um concrete changes other than the $100 of the 100 from 400
to 100. So I think we're missing out a lot of opportunity. >> Just just just to add I'm sorry there was a consideration of sliding the scale >> as well. >> Uh we can yeah we we we can kind of go. So right now we are discussing the motion from councelor Tesh to
>> continue the meeting. So we can discuss what is going to be for the next meeting after we have dealt with that motion. Councelor Tesh. Yes. >> Uh point of inquiry. So uh the city manager has already said that he's going to come back with a revised version. Um
I you know that makes me think that we need to close out this meeting so that then we can get a new revised version or would that >> I just asked the clerk the the any revised proposal can be brought before the subcommittee on conference already without having to adjourn the meeting and it needing to go to the um to the
main meeting. So as long as we continue the meeting any revised proposal can come to this committee directly. >> Perfect. Yeah. >> Yeah. Uh councelor Taylor >> sorry that just that just kind of changed my question. Can can So, I'm not
sure that we're going to talk anymore. I think we've talked a lot about what we think or what good ideas are. Um, I'm not sure that we're going to achieve any more other than some other if we want to
revise what is being proposed. But I mean, I think that can be done offline with the with the city manager and, you know, we can put our two cents in with him individually. He can come up with what he thinks is best and and send it
to the council. >> That's not as >> that is that is that he can do that, right? Okay. >> Mr. President, if if we can also book the next meeting in the chamber so that it could be televised for the public, that >> absolutely that will be a goal. Um, any other questions on councelor Tesha's
motion? Um, councelor Taylor. >> So, to finish, I mean, I I think that this is a priority, so I don't want to string this out like uh the city manager wants us to to make a decision on this.
If we can if we can voice our concerns to him about the current proposal and he comes up with with whatever it is sends it to us and we vote on it. >> So I
any I I just want to I just want to make sure. Yeah. Yeah. That that that is an option. I am not saying one way or another. I am simply saying that there is a motion on the table to either continue the meeting or not. And so unless there is any further debate, we will now vote on the um motion to
continue the meeting or not. >> I'm sorry. I I just wanted to to to to clarify point of inquiry, counselor, even though I'm not part of this body. >> Yes, Mr. Manager, >> but the the I I have heard a lot of feedback. I am I am sensing a little bit of consensus on on where we want to
come, right? Uh councelor uh Hines said that he wants a little bit of sliding the scale, right? uh councelor Teshi I believe and maybe councelor uh uh Sanage said said increasing the inloop inlue uh uh from 100,000 to $200,000 which is the
original amount that was said in in 2019 and then I I did hear consensus among the counselor of of counselors on ra on lowering the 100 unit uh to to a middle ground right I think I think those are the three changes that that that I think
I'm hearing and also uh modifying the requirement to review the ordinance uh potentially 12 12 months but potentially 24 months I think I no more than 24 months is what I heard. >> Can I add and and I would just like to add >> that can be done one of two ways.
Councelor Taylor has suggested that counselors can communicate individually with um the city manager um around this presumably if I may be so bold. you are asking for us to move it out of the committee instead of the the the
continuing. Um so I will just kind of to make sure that that is clear. Um the other alternative would be to have the city manager bring the proposal with the amendments to this committee again at the next scheduled meeting. I will also note we were able to schedule this
meeting within a week because of our new changes in rules. So if we are interested in having the subsequent meeting quickly, we should be able to schedule it fairly quickly. Um you know, so I I will just put that out there as well. Uh councelor Deesus. >> Yeah, Mr. President, just for the
record, if I can add um as my colleague mentioned a very valid concern, if if there are no uh vacant properties, um we will see displacement due to this. And so adding tenant protection similar to what everyone has been talking about the
great dual model and how tenants have been able to have right to return or have a relocation plan I think it's vital so that we are not actually uh contributing to the displacement. So for those areas that we do implement
>> some type of development that essentially displaces everyone who was living in that property then making sure there are protections for those tenants. Sorry, I just want to make sure we are no longer discussing the item. We are discussing the motion to continue the meeting or not. So, please keep any discussion on whether we are continuing
the meeting or not. Any other thoughts on this? All right. So, we are now moving to a vote on continuing the meeting or not. If we vote to not continue the meeting, um we I guess are back to just being in the current meeting and we will figure out what else
to do. So, Mr. Clerk, could you um and sorry, just to actually I will have the clerk clarify what the vote is. >> I believe the motion before you is to continue the meeting, which will not require a committee report and recommendation to the next meeting and
allow you to schedule it uh within 48 hours as opposed to going through reconsideration at the next meeting. >> So yes, >> just to clarify, a no vote does not end the current gathering of us meeting. Um, we will then open to other motions if this motion fails.
>> Correct. >> Can I just Can I just say one thing before we vote? >> I I don't like I don't think it makes that much of a difference. It's more for the city managers. >> I I understand. I understand. But it is the will of the council, not the will of the city manager or the will of any one
of us to decide. So that is why we are taking it to a vote. I have an opinion. I will now vote my opinion and each of us will do that as well. Thank you. Um, sorry. We are waiting for a clerk. >> Thank you, Mr. Clerk, for your patience uh tonight and helping us with all this.
>> Motion before you is a motion to continue the meeting. Yes. Vote to continue. No. Vote to reject. Council Taylor, >> no. >> Council recuper. >> Council Jimenez Rivera. >> Yes. >> Council Hines. >> Yes.
>> Yes. Councilor Tener Garcia. >> Yes. >> Yes. Council Tesh. >> Yes. >> Yes. Council Kelly Garcia. Is that council Santa? >> Yes. >> Council De Jesus. >> Yes. >> Yes. Councelor Brown. >> Yes. >> Yes. And Council Robinson? >> No.
>> No. Seven members voting in favor, two members voting no, and two members absent. Motion to continue. Approved. >> So, we will close today's session and move to the meeting to be continued at a future date. Thank you. Thank you everybody for joining us tonight.