All right, giving the TV one second. And here we go. So, we should be all set to go now. Um, I will call the meeting to order at 610. Uh, Mr. Clerk, if you could call the role of the members. >> Council Taylor >> here. >> Council Cooper >> here. >> Councelor Jimenez Rivera
>> present. >> Councelor Hines is absent. Councelor Tenari Garcia is absent. Council Ortesh >> present. >> Councilor Kelly Garcia is absent. Councelor Santigette >> present. >> Councilor De Jesus is absent. Council Brown is absent. And councelor Robinson >> here. >> Six members present. You have a quorum. Mr. President.
>> Thank you, Mr. Clerk. And I just like to note we had a couple of members who are sick. We have a couple members who are um couldn't make it tonight for a number of reasons. Uh councelor De Jesus should be here in a few minutes. And I just want to point out um I will have to leave early um pretty soon because of a work meeting that I have tonight, but I
wanted to be here to um to start the meeting. Um, and I just once councelor De Jesus uh is here, I will hand it off to her so that she can continue facilitating the meeting. But thank you everybody for being here. Um, councelor Rakupo, you have a question. Uh,
>> so it uh, councelor Cooper is asking if we're going to vote on it. Um, that is up to the council. Um, so it will be up to up to the members that are here at the end of the meeting to make that decision. Um I just before we start off I just wanted to since I won't be able to speak during
the meeting because I won't be here. Um I just have a quick uh quick comment that I would like to read. Um we've had multiple lengthy meetings on this proposal. I know that I've spoken to many of the advocates here and not here on both sides of this issue. Before I leave, I want to mention that we have
heard repeatedly from community members that we need to hear from other community voices and from not developers. I am hoping to make that happen. So, I'm just informing the council and the community that in the next few weeks I I think we should prioritize having a conversation with
kind of folks who are not in support of this proposal just so that we can have that um discussion as well and that it's not something that we necessarily have to hold up the proposal for. It can happen outside of the the proposal process itself. Um because I agree that
it is important on the policy itself. I remain a bit unconvinced that inclusionary zoning is the problem. I am still having and I'm open to conversations on that and I could see where for smaller developments in particular it could be and that is why I'm grateful that this proposal literally cannot be voted on until at
least early June if not later has to go to planning for a public hearing has to come back to council for a public hearing and then we will take a final vote on it sometime in June if not later. I'm hoping that we can use the time between when it goes to planning to when it comes back to have conversations
that are about housing and the revenue crisis, but not limited to this proposal. We need to focus on ways to build incentives into this policy that encourage development that makes sense instead of loosening regulations and hoping for the best. All this said, I think the council has asked many
questions both in this room and outside of it. Even though I myself am currently not prepared to vote yes on this policy, I believe that we should create opportunities for community to speak on it. That is why I am in support of sending this to planning for a public hearing. Even though I won't be here to vote at the end of this meeting, I urge
my colleagues to please do so before this meeting ends today. >> I sure hope so, but it will be up to you all to decide on what you're going to do because I will not be here. Uh counselor, uh it is a so we will need a simple majority to refer this back to the council meeting on April 27th at
which point we would then be able to refer it to the planning board if the council so chooses. With that said, um Mr. Manager, is there anything else from your end that is new or do we just want to open for
I will say counselor that that uh um you know we we have um done a good job I think having this conversation. It is a very very hard conversation. Um and and I think I think it's particularly hard because because we're talking about very complicated
things. We're talking about displacement. We're talking about uh um gentriification. We're talking about uh um the the upcoming fiscal cliff that we are all seeing. And and it's it's really hard to to weigh all of those things together. I I agree with you wholeheartedly that
that this is a conversation that is going to take some time. Uh and we want to make sure that everyone is is at the table. uh um we uh make a a commitment uh to to continue those those conversations uh uh both in private places and in public spaces like we are
doing uh um tomorrow. Uh we have scheduled a a panel in the senior center. We we are going to uh have have community meetings uh at different organizations and and that is something that we are committed to. uh um we we uh
um you know we are not saying that this uh proposal before you is perfect. Absolutely not. There there are are many uh tweaks and and changes that could be made. Uh th this is uh um you know one option that we can go to. Absolutely.
>> Thank you. I will now open it to the council for any comments or questions. Councelor Taylor. >> Thank you. I I just wanted to add one um thing to to uh councelor Jimenez's words.
I also agree that this needs a lot of public discourse, right? However, I would I would I would just like to say and maybe it was maybe it was or it came out wrong or I heard it wrong, but I think when we provide a
public forum for people, it's not just for people who disagree with something or that agree with something. You know, I I think it's it's it's a call for the general public to come out and be heard,
whatever their opinion is. And and I think that that's important and that we don't get a few groups who just flood the zone as usual. You don't that that doesn't that only tells us something that we already know that those
organizations are for or against something that I would encourage just everyday regular folks who aren't affiliated with any organizations to come out and be heard on this. and whether you're a renter or whether
you're a homeowner. Um, you know, I I think that I think that this is I agree with councelor Jimenez that that this is an important conversation that needs to be had, but we can't be, you know, I think in Chelsea a lot what
happens is is that, you know, people want to put their thumbs on the scale when when we're having a conversation. And I don't think that that's really I think I think that the conversations that I've heard yes you you got to hear from people that
we usually don't get to hear from which which are the developers but that's an opportunity for people who are skeptical of those people to ask the hard questions right and to put them on the hot seat. It's not necessarily so that
people can, you know, and and and and and for those that disagree with this, great. Voice your voice your opinion. You may not have the same one as me, but you've got every right to voice it and have a say in your public policy. So,
you know, and and furthermore, I think too that you're going to see distinct differences between coun some counselors and others about why they're going to vote for or against this. And I got to say, I hope people can get out of their
ideologies because I think ideology and and I know this firsthand, you know, I'm I'm always asked to put my ideology aside and and a lot of times I mean most of the times I try to keep it out of my decision-m. So I I would encourage
everybody else u to try to do that and and and don't don't be a slave to ideology. have an open mind about what's going to make stuff work in this city, what's going to give us the opportunity to uh do the
most good for the most amount of people. Thank you, >> Councelor Snegate. >> Good evening, everyone. So, I have spent the last week um
thinking, as I told Fidel, I even had a nightmare where Fidel mocked my ideas in front of a big crowd and I left crying. So, it's on my mind. And one of the things that um I did was take a look at
the map that's out in the hall. Um and I don't um city manager I think that map was created by um UTIL so uh for Palante and one of the things
that I feel is missing in um and I've said this before are tiers. I I think that there is the potential for some taring, not for a one-sizefits-all
80 uh 80% at uh 80% at 60. What was what are my numbers? 100 at 60 and 180 and 7% at no
>> 10 at 10 at 80 and seven at 60. I have too many numbers in my head, including some in front of me. So, I took a look at that map and I kind of identified it by areas that I would say they
identified um the red areas of the map as transformative and those two areas were West Chelsea and Creekide Home Depot. Then another category was catalytic and that was Broadway, Eastern A, Kerry Square and the rest was managed. That was the white
part and those were kind of our our denser neighborhoods. So I am looking at trying to create tears and I reached an impass because I'm this is not my purview and I think
that happens a lot in our meetings as well especially when not both sides of the table are there where you're asking the community members to come to something but they don't really understand everything. So, you can have a community meeting at a
restaurant, but are the people who come going to really know how to tweak it? I I've been studying it and I don't think I'm that much I I'm a little bit closer to understanding. But I think what I'm trying to say is that I feel like we
should look at that or recommend that planning look at that or I just think that we can do better again and that we can create something that's not a one-sizefits-all based on geographic area density and
things like um sort of like desiraability. We have some incredible neighborhoods here and so we should not sell them short, but at the same time we should give our people a chance to live in
them, as many people as possible. So that's what I've spent my time thinking about. Um, and I I fall short at the numbers in terms of percentages. I just don't I also do have a difficult time and I
don't mean to be disrespectful to the people who are bringing new growth into our city but I feel that if you can build a 100 plus units that you can make one or two 30% AMI people are saying they can't. I just am having a difficult
time with that from an economic perspective. So, uh, that's those are my thoughts about what I would like to see that would get me closer to, um, to a yes. Um, I think that it is
necessary, particularly economically, but I I just think we need to do more to make it more inclusive. >> Please, >> Councelor Robinson,
>> I I did offer an amendment um at the last meeting and and actually I'd just like to speak about why I did that. This is a deliberate and disciplined approach to protecting the services of
our residents and businesses rely on while investing long-term strength and stability of our city. Across the Commonwealth and the country, cities and towns face challenging fiscal environ environmental
marked rising costs, slowing revenues, growth, economic uncertainty, uncertainty, and inflationary pressures. Chelsea is navigating these conditions within the con constraints of the state.
limitations on municipal revenue and diversification, including Proposition 2 and a half. This is a difficult moment, but Chelsea meets it from a position of durability and determination.
So, I am I am introducing a friendly amendment to the proposed inclusionary zoning policy. Amendment section 14156 inclusionary zoning. The amendment is to address the stadium
in Everett that will be built over the next few years to get to the stadium. Commuters will be traveling from ma market basket and using a commuter rail
and silver line and I feel if we don't have anything in place we will stand to lose millions and millions of dollars by development not taking place in Chelsea i.e. We will
lose out on restaurant taxes, meal taxes, excise taxes, revenue from parking passes, in addition, new growth revenue from residents and commercial development.
All these things help our whole community. I've heard from taxpaying residents who have called me directly to thank me for proposing this amendment that they believe will bring their their taxes
down or at at the very least ensure they do not rise and protect the services that rely on the city. And that's the reason why I introduced that inclusionary zoning piece. I think
it's important that we all take a step back and think about where we are today and where we're going. And if we don't have these things in place, the city is going to be the loser and the people in this community will be the loser.
>> Thank you, councelor. Counselor Tesy. Thank you, Madame Chair. Um, you know, the the the first time when I saw the proposal, I I thought it was a um a pretty careless proposal. Um, because
the the numbers uh and changes that were going to that were going to be brought to the city were just astronomical in a way that uh would price out all of our families. when I ran to to
represent my uh my community and specifically in in district 7, which is majority renters, um I did not foresee having to make a decision that would negatively impact um the lives of those who who elected me. And for that reason, I take this very
seriously. Um, and when I first saw it, that's that's when I asked uh Fidel uh that we should talk about it, not only in the subcommittee, but we should talk about it individually. Um, and I and I will say I am thankful to the city manager for making sure that whenever I
did reach out, he was there. Um, I will say where this proposal lacked um any real efficiency was in in in the providing of data. Um, I'm getting today a for financial forecast of the
next uh seven years and and I'm looking at if if we keep going the way we're going, we're going to be in a $20 million deficit by 2031, meaning the city will not have money to operate. Um, and that's a very scary thought. Uh, but
again, I'm I'm I'm getting this today. Um, I will say I think when we decide to make changes uh to this city that are so impact impactful as this one, uh we we have to be a little more careful. We
have to be a little more um efficient when the you provide the data to to justify the changes that we want to make. Uh nonetheless, it does not change the fact that we still have to make a decision. Um and and I feel confident
that through the conversations I've had with other counselors and with the city manager, um at least bringing back um the the regulations initially proposed from 100 down to 50, um from 15 down to 10. Um, I think these are going to be
very beneficial uh for the city as we try to uh balance out the budget, but at the same time making sure that we do not throw everybody um out of the boat. Um, again,
I take every decision that I make in this council to to affect and impact all the lives in in in the city of Chelsea. And so, I do not make it lightly. And when I decide to speak, it it's from the heart. It's from the thought of what would the people want me to do? And from
the conversations that I've had with with constituents, some of they some of them say this is a bad idea. Some of them say this is a good idea. Some of them don't want to talk about it. Some of them don't have time to talk about it. So, I'm left with making sure that I do the best I can uh in terms of
researching this subject so that I can make an informed decision. And again, I would say, city manager, please, next time that you provide something like this, I know you do your best already. I I don't want to say you don't do that, but but we we should expect more in terms of
providing data to back up the decisions we're making. I think as of now, the council has done its best um to to provide its feedback. uh the planning board will be getting some feedback to to to us uh to us um and at that point
we'll be we'll be able to make a decision and I think the the months from here to that point when we do make a decision will be enough for us to again be informed um with with as much as we can to make the best decision possible for our city. Um, so want to make sure
that the people of Chelsea know and the people who elected me that I am doing my best the same way Lisa has mentioned. She's been researching. I I praise Councelor Lisa for for uh doing her due diligence. Um because we can we we
cannot make a decision just because we think it's a good idea or a bad idea. You have to be able to back it back it up with with evidence and with data. Thank you. Thank you, counselor. Um, may I share a few words, counselor, and then I'll I'll
throw it over to you. Um, so I I just wanted to share briefly, similar to my colleagues, um, that I I'm also not ready today to to make a decision on either the amendment or the original proposal. And my reason behind it is very similar to some of my colleagues
who have just spoken. And just want to clarify that for the five years that I've been a counselor, uh when I entered, one of my biggest um sort of um goals was to evaluate the past, learn from previous counselors who have been
on this body for many more years and then be able to support in being innovative and and and and adapting to the changes in the community. And I think that what the city manager has before us is that opportunity for us to be able to make changes in a community
that um you know has changed over the years. However, I don't feel comfortable making those changes. I feel at the moment that um you know with gratitude to the the opportunity I had to participate in conversations with local developers and with gratitude to all of the
community members who came up and spoke of their lived experiences and concerns. Um, also when I came in as a counselor, I was a renter. I'm now a homeowner. So, I'm able to see and experience that other life now as well as a homeowner, a small homeowner in Chelsea. Um, but I
think that we need to still be able to bring in our partners that do the data and the research on a regional level. um you know partners who are able to see it from the outside and be able to support us with maybe some local research and
and be able to support us and guide us in terms of impacts that have happened in other communities. I also appreciate the guidance and support from our state officials um as they share their experiences in Everett. I think that's great. Um and and last but not least, I
was very clear um before I as we move forward, I want to make sure that we can also uh implement support um programs um and find ways, right? The same way that we're taking this risk of moving forward and seeing what happens. uh find ways
and and and ensure that we have also systems in place to catch those families who don't make it um through the changes that this uh amendment um may bring to the community. Uh councelor Rob um Rubro, >> I'm sorry, councelor. I just want to say
something that that that uh um I think I think the committee uh the community meeting that we had uh on on Saturday was was was was a game changer for me. Um because I I realized at that point that we were not talking about inclusionary zoning. We were talking
about what is the city going to do to prevent displacement of residents. Uh and and and what the city has been doing is is is doing a a a herculan job with with with all of the programs, whether it's uh uh construction of affordable
housing, whether it's rental assistance, whether it's raft, whether it's uh uh is is support services uh uh after an emergency, whether it's a fire or other things. Uh and and those are things that that
the majority of the council uh uh supports uh and and and and it pro it is programs that are necessary in in our community, right? And and I don't want to be a a chicken little person, but uh uh what what councelor Teshi said was
was was very true, right? that that all of those programs are are funded uh e either with ARPA funds or or with you know with with free cash right uh and uh we are very lucky that we are in a position today right to h have those
funds and continue that right and I I just want to to um say that that that we we have to be looking at all the options in order to continue that service right and and um uh we will continue pursuing
all development whether it's it's it's it's it's on the waterfront, right? Uh uh whether it's a a parking garage or or whether it's a a redevelopment of market basket, uh we're bringing in in new businesses uh into Chelsea. The we now it's a time to to put all options on the
table in order to continue funding all of these efforts that are are benefiting our community. Councelor Ricell. >> Good evening. Um, I'm not going to give you numbers. I'm not going to give you figures. I'm just going to talk to you
as a person that lives in this city and not a rich person, as an average individual that's here. So I'm going to tell you the average way so everybody can actually understand instead of all the numbers the figures the amendments and this that this city I was told I was
here when we first started exclusionary zoning when we did it it was supposed to protect the people and keep everything down from what I seen it became that you can't live here it's too expensive so I understand what people have been they think that
they're being p pushed ped out. What pushes you out is your economy. That's what pushes you out, not this stuff. It pushes you out is who comes here. I I most of the rent here is dictated to the federal government. So everybody
that's here that rents is dictated to the federal governments. So what happens is they set a standard and this is what you're going to pay. And 90% of the people CAN'T PAY IT. LOOK AT ME. If I don't pay my taxes, even though I lived here 50 years, I GET KICKED OUT. SO,
WHAT DOES IT MATTER? You know, in in some ways, everything evolves around money. Everything has to do with money. So, if you think that this city is not growing and the money's not there, like fellow council said, you won't get all
the stuff you need. But it's plain and simple. This does not change anything. The only thing that changes the city's still going to develop. The city's still going to build. You think it changes? What does it change? You think by you doing stopping this is going to stop the
rent from going up? Do you think that's going to make uh you live in a city and that's not going to gentrify? You know what gentrification means? That means they kick you out when you can't afford to live there. And that's what anybody, it doesn't matter where you come from,
where you are, if you can't afford to live where you're at, then you get kicked out. So the solution this city has is, and it's always been my belief that we should make more affordable for people to live here, not just to affordable housing, to affordable apartments, to affordable given. And I
tried I tried to give landlords a more of a tax break. I try to give them so they can keep the people in that city instead of being pushed out. You get pushed out not because of exclusionary zoning or any kind of zoning. You get
pushed out by economics. So what that means is you get pushed out. So, but what we have to do is when they come and develop, tell them, you can't tell him to set a standard how much they're
going to charge you, you can't say to somebody, you can't tell a landlord, if Mr. Manuel owns a house and he has to pay his taxes, what's he going to do? Is he going to say to the tenant, "Don't pay me the rent because if you don't pay me the rent, I can I can take it." He
can't. Everybody that's here has to live within what? The means that we able to live with. So, if the city doesn't grow, you're going to croak. And if the city croaks, the tenants are GOING TO BE MOVED out because they have to put more
taxes on the homeowners. The homeowners are going to pass it to the tenants. So what happens is you have a domino effect. People they think that they're not going to get affected. YOU GET AFFECTED NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO BECAUSE MONEY dictates how you live.
That is the bottom line. Money dictates how you live. So to me they pass it, they don't pass it. It ain't going to make a difference to anybody. The people here are still going to pay the same rent. Make it so that people here don't PAY ANY PAY LESS RENT. THEN it's worth
it. But if you doing something that's not going to change, it's not going to drop your rent and you're still going to get kicked out. WHAT IS THE POINT? WHAT ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT? What is it going to do? Is it going to keep you here? It's not going to keep you here because if you can't pay, you leave. Same thing as me. I'm a homeowner. If I can't pay
my taxes, what do you think happens to me? Even though I own the 50 years, the city will own my house. So, what choice do we really have? What are we fighting for? What do we really want? I've yet to understand. What do we want? What do we want? Everybody can't
live for free because if everybody live for free, THERE'D BE NOTHING FOR NOBODY ELSE. So a small percentage maybe are allowed to live. But that's already done because you got section 8s. So when these BUILDING GETS BUILT, THEY HAVE SECTION 8S INCORPORATED IN THEM. They
already have it. So the percentage of the people that are affordable units is THE ONES THAT ALREADY HAVE IT. THEN THE REST OF THESE UNITS that you supposedly built are built through market rate. market rate. Who do you think sets the market? Most people don't know who sets the market. The federal government sets
the market. So, the federal government comes and says, "You have a three-bedroom apartment and you're going to pay $3500." So, the little landlord, what's he going to do? He's going to have to raise his rent because the federal government says, "This is what you're going to do." So, if you working
in a system like we are, we're a small town. We're not a rich town. We're we're supposedly not well off, but it's a community of hardworking people. All the people that live here are hardworking. I can't do nothing. None of us can really do anything if they get
displaced. What can we really do? What do you expect the city to do? Like, what can we do? Everything runs on money. Okay, you you don't want to be displaced. We give the landlords less taxes. Then you get to stay. Are they guaranteed that they're going
to lower your rent? No. So, what do you do? You want your services? You want the car, the police? You want the fire? You want EPW? That all cost money. If you don't have it, what are you going to do? Then you be a society of we're not going
to do it, but we're not going to have it. So, what is the point of I get what people are trying to say? You they automatically think that this is going to displace people. I don't know if this is going to displace people. What displaces people is economics, money,
money, money, money. That's what displaces you. If you can't pay it, YOU'RE GOING TO GO. Just like me. If I can't pay my taxes, where am I going? Out the door. So, what can we do? I don't know. >> Councelor, I think city manager wants to respond.
>> Please. Please. Yeah. Um I want to say what what councelor uh uh Raup is saying right is is that the the uh um we are at a point of of of inflection right where we can't u
continue the same and to piggyback off of what uh councelor Tesh said that uh um data right uh is should should drive this decision we we Um we did a a study right of uh uh of of of the impact of of
this policy uh since it was implemented in in 2017 right and and we found that uh um and this data is going to be published on on our website uh and we are going to do a deep dive on on the cases right uh uh we found that uh since
2017 uh two units at 30% AMI have been built two units at 30% AMI have been built uh and two units at 50% AMI have been built. Right? So, so I I think one benefit of of this data is that now it is public and I believe in conversations
with every counselor I think we all agree that a change is needed. I think we all agree that the policy is not working that that the the policy is not in fact creating affordable housing particularly the deep affordable housing that we want. it it is not creating that
and and and it is having a uh a consequence right an adverse consequence of of preventing any development. I I think I I believe in my in in in in uh with all honesty and speaking from the heart that I think I think that point has been made. Uh and and I think u many
counselors uh are are not sure whether the proposal before you is the best proposal. Uh but I I don't believe that that that that we are arguing whether the policy should be changed or not. Um and uh what I request of of the city
council is to basically uh um uh let the horse out of the barn, if you will, right? Uh um to uh send this back to the city council uh uh and send it back to the planning board. Uh in in in the meantime, we we will uh continue holding
these these conversations. We are having a a conversation with with regional experts, right? So, so uh uh uh uh um folks who who are on both sides of the aisle, right? Are going to come uh and they're going to share, you know, what the options are, right? what what what
potential uh uh solutions are. And and over the next two months, uh uh both the planning board and the city council will have an opportunity, right, to to make uh u more educated decisions, right, on on on on what uh
the the ultimate proposal will look like. The planning board, right, uh um is is the body that sees all the cases, right? uh uh um in the month of April. We have no cases, right? We we we have I
believe two that are are are coming in uh uh in May. One of one of the two will is it two or three? Uh four. The the one of them is is uh uh is basically a reintroduction of of the case that was introduced in January. Uh um so so we we
uh what my request of the city council is is is to um you know let the process continue, send this back to the city council, send this back to the planning board uh a and have the conversation be
be a a a communitywide conversation. >> Thank you, city manager. I'm going to make a few comment then I have Teshi and then Taylor and then recuper once again. Um uh I I agree with you, city manager. I think that um
this ordinance when it was created was po possibly thought of more to create affordable housing. But because that's not what happened, we still have to study to see what impact it actually did. Maybe it prevented displacement in some way or shape, right? Um, and I and
I also agree that um I think everyone that I have heard in in in both sides of this debate has been asking for more data. So, I'm I'm looking forward to seeing this data. I'm looking forward to getting more information as to how we uh through the Palante plan got different
data from the data that we've been studying that you presented with regards to when the the zoning was first implemented. um and and closing the gaps and answering those questions that have been brought up, I think is really important. I think that would have helped us um if that was done sort of
initially before the the amendment was introduced to have that type of information. But regardless of it all, I think that in order for us to move forward, that that needs to happen. We need to be able to hear from the planning board and be able to um uh have deeper conversations on this and and with with the experts that you you spoke
of. Um uh Council Teshi. >> Um Mr. City Manager, are you in favor of Councelor Leo Robinson's amendment? >> Um, I I think Councelor Robinson's amendment uh uh is is follows the same tune as as Councelor Saggate's
amendment, which is the the the idea of of of a one-sizefits-all uh policy is uh uh is hard, right? Uh uh even in Chelsea, a very small city, not all areas are the same, right? And and I think that's what I heard from councelor
Sanagate, right? A a desire to to uh uh prioritize, if you will, make things easier in some areas and make things a little harder in in in other areas. Uh I I think that the that that what what uh uh what councelor Robinson is is
proposing is exactly that, right? Uh uh and and I think it it will essentially create a tier, right? So, so it achieves what I think a few of the counselors want, which is to to to create a notion of taring, right? That that there are
some areas that have a higher uh uh threshold and some areas that have a lower threshold. >> Uh, right. I I would just ask again. Um, and it's okay if you say you don't you don't want to answer it at this point, but are you in favor of it? Do you think this this this is good? Absolutely.
Along with the Okay. Okay. you know, because um I'm thinking and after having a conversation with Councelor Leo Robinson is, okay, the reason why we're fighting the the changes of inclusionary zoning is because we do not want to see a 100 unit buildings be put up in the
middle of neighborhoods. Um however, you know, in in this amendment, you're talking about West Chelsea, you're talking about an area that's just right next to well, in Market Basket. um and and their huge parking land could definitely be developed into something
and and if we're talking about buildings and developments, perhaps this is a good a good area where they could go up um and definitely not throughout our city and especially in areas where it's highly renter concentrations. Um so I you know that just to say that um I also
think this is good um particularly for the market basket area um and only applicable in the market basket area um and for that reason I would be voting in favor of sending this to the planning board and seeing what what thoughts they have about it.
>> Councelor Taylor and then councelor Sanig. >> Yeah. So, I keep on hearing the same arguments, but it the the thing is is that I think we're still missing the point. We're still conflating
the issue of of changing inclusionary zoning. We're conflating that with the amount of affordable housing we have in this city. Okay, these are two different things.
And um I I think the numbers bear it out that if you got rid of in I mean inclusionary zoning only provided for a handful of units during during the entire time. So
I I just I just can't see where where whereas the vast majority of affordable housing that we have was built independently. I I would note that TND is the largest
landlord in Chelsea. So look, we cannot get stuck on this is this is only going to going to, you know, I I want one unit here, I
want one unit there, I want that is insignificant compared to the amount of 100% affordable projects that you have. And it's much more efficient to do it
this way than to try to do it that way where you're just scaring off all the money that I mean that I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. City Manager, but the second largest taxpayer,
property taxpayer is the Vero Apartments. That's correct. And and I I gotta say we we none of us here, especially me,
don't want to see us get rid of affordable housing. Affordable housing. I think everybody agrees that we need some affordable housing. I think that we also need to recognize that we have double the state average of affordable
housing. I think what instead of I think some of some of the counselors need to zoom out and and not be so focused on I mean the part of the problem is is that we care
about people in Chelsea. A lot of the other communities don't have that same sense of community that Chelsea has and they don't uh they have not done their fair share uh to support
uh the these kind of kinds of projects. But we here cannot take on all those other uh cities burdens of this. It becomes too much to where we're going to collapse. we're not going to have the
money that we need. So, so I beg of you. I mean, this is not This is why I say don't be a slave to ideology. You got to understand the bigger picture. We got to we got to work on some of these other people to carry the weight. Chelsea can't carry everybody's
weight. Yeah. >> And so we need money so that we can I mean what other what other municipality builds these 100% affordable projects other than Chelsea? Is there anyone else doing it?
>> I I think what what I have heard in in every conversation that I've had whether it's it's on Broadway or or or or or with developers or or or at a community organization is I think people understand the idea of balance. I I I think people that is something that we
we experience in our household. Uh it is something that we we we I think uh I that that has been something that that has been received and and has been understood, right? And and I I I think that with balance, with growth, with revenue comes the ability
to afford all of the programs that we love. I I sent an email to the the city council that that that uh uh our affordable housing trust fund board and and fund uh has $500,000 remaining remaining in funding, right? Uh uh and
essentially what that is is is one year's worth of funding. Uh and the affordable housing trust fund uh uh has provided significant funding for rental assistance has provided uh uh funding for for uh projects for affordable
housing projects including uh Prattville, including uh one on William Street. The these are the kind of things that that that allow us to have more impact and and be more uh impactful, right? Uh in terms of achieving the goals that that we want. uh and and
unfortunately these are the kinds of decisions that that that we have to make as as a as a legislative body, right? Uh uh we we have to have balance and we have to to welcome the growth, welcome the revenue that allows us to complete and and sustain the programs that are
that our community loves. >> So So I just want to one one more thing um and that is that is to talk about affordability and displacement. We had a meeting Friday that that was uh attended by Senator Saudi Dominico,
not Saturday, f Friday, pardon me. Uh and he was explaining the process in Everett and he's an Everett guy. The the biggest way and everybody don't take my word for it. Listen to Senator
S. Okay. The way that they brought affordability to keep Everett affordable was to build more. Building more does not lead necessarily to gentrification.
It it it leads it it is the law of supply and demand. And the more supply you have, the demand goes down. the the the more uh the less supply you have, the more the demand is going to go
up, which is where we are now. So, for all the people that are worried about people being displaced, you know, displacement is going to happen regardless of what we do. I I I think that if we build more
overall affordability is going to is going to be there and and uh the the more that people have uh to choose from, the more that's on the market, the more that's sitting there,
rents go down. So, so that that that is I think an easier way um to stem displacement. And like I said, please don't take my word for it. talked to Senator Sal D. Dominico who explained this to everybody in that meeting on
Friday. And you know, I think that Senator Sal has earned his stripes for credibility in this community. And I would I would ask the people that are so worried about it to ask him and and what he thinks. >> Councelor Stan. >> Great. Um, a couple of things to
piggyback off of what councelor Taylor was just talking about. I guess I would ask him to to zoom to zoom in and think about the fact that inclusionary zoning although it did
doesn't it wasn't meant to create huge amounts of affordable housing it's not insignificant to the people for whom it creates even though it's little that's that's significant so that that's the
oppos but I'm talking about not just in an afford 100% affordable unit but in other places as well. Um and that I think is why it was created in the first place. The other thing is um to piggyback on what you were talking about
about what Senator S said, uh there was a really interesting article this weekend about Austin, Texas, which is exactly what has happened for them as far as um having so they built so much they relaxed all of the rules to the
extent where they built so much that rents are going down at a rapid rate. So because there was more supply, I will concede that that did happen in that city and that was that that was just reported. So um I just wanted to talk
about councelor Robinson's amendment which I think is a tier. I think we might need another tier in another neighborhood. And I would add
the Creekide area to this amendment because I feel that that meets the same criteria as West Chelsea as far as space um and desiraability and I so
um I feel like this is a step in the right direction, but maybe we just need a little bit more. Councelor um recuper >> um I heard supply and demand lowers the
rent. No, it doesn't. You think it does. This city is 1.8 square miles. How much can you build? It's only 1.8 square miles. So, in some sense, we're not Houston. We're only a a
dot. So, how much can you build? What do you think you're going to build here? You think you you got a 20 m square miles. What are you going to build? So you can only build a certain amount as far as uh over there market basket.
Who knows? That's their property. It could be built 10 20 years from now. What if they decide they don't want to build it? What are you going to do? You going to push them and push them? What are you going to take it for eminent domain? What are you going to do? That's one thing. Fine. when like I'm going back again. When we created this
amendment, it was to help people stay. But the only thing that's going to help people stay here is by lowering your taxes and lowering your rents. And that's never going to happen. It's never going to happen. No one's ever going to lower their rents. Is they talking about
affordability in this city? Okay. Do you know what a one-bedroom apartment costs? Onebedroom apartment I think is like $1,800. A two that even higher. I'm going the low low mark. A twobedroom is like
$2400. A threebedroom, well maybe is even higher. I'm just low going low. So when you talking about affordability, what are you talking about? What's affordable? That is the point that the public
doesn't understand or doesn't want to understand is We arguing about affordable. Affordable. Affordable. What is affordable? I'm back. I said that before and I say it again. What is affordable? You want to
create a city that's affordable for everybody. Yes, I'm for affordable housing. When we did that thing, I was in favor of it to create it to keep the people here. My argument is always the same one. I want Chelsea people to stay in Chelsea. That
is the argument I've been saying for years. But how are we going to manage that? What is the solution? All this that's HERE IS NOT A SOLUTION. You think it's a solution, but how's it going to you're going to build more buildings? People are against building because the
city's too small as it is. So, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO BUILD? Where you going to put it? That's another answer. You know, a question that needs to be answered. Where you going to develop? What you going to do? Well, can I answer after he says, "Can I continue talking or am I just restricted?"
>> What do we got? >> All right. So, wait, Mr. Fidel, one more thing I got going to say, then you can answer. I don't know if you can understand what I'm trying to tell you. I'm trying to tell you in the easiest most best way.
The best way for people to stay here is for people that own BUILDINGS TO LOWER THEIR RENTS. GO TO THEM TO these big corporation that own all these big buildings. Go to THEM AND SAY LOWER YOUR RENT and see what the answer is if they
LOWER IF THEY REALLY but they're not going to do that because everybody's in the business of making money. >> That's what it is. >> Thank you, councelor. Uh city manager. >> Um thank you so much. What I want to share is is I think the uh um the
concept of market basket as a as as a case study, right? Uh um uh we have been working, councelor Robinson and I have been working with with Market Basket for almost two and a half years. We uh uh we we signed a a a legal document anou that
that outlines the process by which that property is is going to be opened up. Right. uh uh and what when we met with with market basket what they told us is is uh um the city can do three things.
One is the city can make uh uh uh zoning more friendly for development which which is what we are doing now right as a citywide with this change of policy. Then they said the city can build infrastructure, right? Uh and we
are doing that on on Spruce Street and on Second Street. Uh uh and we have a significant amount amount of of grants and infrastructure that is going to happen uh in that area. And the third thing was was the city can be open uh
and engaging in development with conversations. I I am very optimistic about the the the uh uh the prospect of development at at Market Basket and I am very optimistic about development in the neighbor that's across the street where
where Bunker Hill is currently is currently located. These are our are our our two very big property owners that that are highly engaged and and and are are chomping at the bit to uh uh uh get development going here in Chelsea.
Thank no counselor I have uh councelor Robinson and then councelor Tesian then I'll come back to you >> just just briefly it's like when you go to the bank to get a mortgage you have to meet a certain criteria if you don't have the income to be able to provide
for that purchase of the house you're not going to get that loan so when when developers are looking at developing these buildings And the banks now are looking at the fact of how many um units that you're
building, how many affordables that you might have. If you have a bunch of ones that only relate to 30%. The bank is going to say, "I'm concerned about how you're going to pay me back."
Because if those units are vacant for any amount of time, you still got to pay your mortgage. And even if the project takes a long time, as it was mentioned through Juan Guyel's property, who's
paying $7,000 a month for a project that is in the pipeline that's not even being built yet. So, we need to look at those factors and figure out what is the best way for us to engage. And the reason I
offered the amendment is to kind of separate out what it is. And I think as a body, anybody at this table could have came in with any amendment that they wanted to offer up that they felt that they wanted to present. Um, you know, I
think it's either we move this out of committee to the city council. Let the city council figure out about moving it back to the planning board. let it come back and we can have all the discussion in the world of how we want to move with
it, what we want to do with it. >> Thank you, councelor. Counselor Teshi, >> I agree with Councelor Robinson and and for that reason, I I would like to put a motion that we refer this um amendment, including councelor Robinson's amendment out of committee and to the full council
so that we as a full council officially can decide whether or not we want to send this to the planning board. That's my motion. Councelor, can you repeat your motion? >> Yes. To to refer out the uh the um amendment by the city manager and
including councelor Robinson's amendment to the full council so that then we may decide whether or not um we send this to the planning board. We do not decide to send it here. We send it back to the council and then as a council we decide to send it.
>> Thank you counselor. I want >> point point of order. Uh, Mr. Clerk, does do we ha does it have to go from here back to the council or it just goes to the council automatically?
>> Correct. Your motion will be to refer it out of committee with a positive or negative recommendation, then the full council decides whether or not to refer it to planning. So, even if this committee decides to refer it with a positive recommendation, the full council could still choose to vote it down if they chose.
>> Thank you. And at this moment, can is there um opportunity for comments in general or this is just on the motion that was on the ground? >> Any comments on motion? >> I I mean >> I mean I I if we're going to vote if
we're going to vote now, I'm going to vote in favor of it. I think it's I think it's I think we need to consider the whole the whole the whole thing uh as a package. I think it's generally a good idea. So, we'll let the planning board take a look at it. >> I'll share that I um
again I I feel like our boards and committees themselves take the time to get these studies and um even for a a speed bump in your district like it takes a while for you to be able to to
do a change that you know that for us we're like we just put the speed bump down. but they're trying to look at all avenues. And so I want to make sure that we honestly like are giving this the same priority that we give a speed bump when we're making these decisions. Let's inform ourselves like if there are
studies I mean MHP and all these other folks that have been part of our um evaluations of our zoning. I mean I I still don't feel comfortable.
Um, I think that there's a lot aside from what we're trying to change or fix or understand that was verbalized by the property owners themselves that is challenging when they're trying to get their permits and trying to get their development in the city. And none of
that is really being taken into account. So, we don't even really know if we are approaching this holistically. like we make this change and and still we're seeing that the development isn't what we envisioned. So I I will be just stating present for the
following. But um any councelor Rubro um going back to the city manager, here's a a simple question. City manager, what is the city trying to achieve by changing this? That is the bottom line. What are
you trying to achieve? Is it going to achieve something good or is it going to displace people? So let the people understand exactly what you were trying to do. >> Absolutely. >> How's it going to impact everybody else? >> Absolutely. And I'll I'll answer your
question, counselor, and piggy back off off of uh uh uh uh the vice president question that you are absolutely right. This alone is not going to fix everything. Right. This alone is not going to fix everything. the uh um we we have been on a year and a half process
uh uh converting our software in inspectional services to open gov. Uh it was launched uh maybe 30 days ago uh and and uh it is now making the process uh significantly more efficient where where everything is online. Uh uh the the
first uh permit for new construction was approved today and it was a a a project uh uh for Hanggo at 126 Pearl Street. I I we we are trying to tackle as many of these issues a as possible. uh we uh
this is one piece of the puzzle but but unfortunately it's like it's like a puzzle right if we are if we don't put in this piece right it's really hard to make it make the entire puzzle necessary right we we are are are going to continue working on on on all the
puzzles we are going to continue chasing down commercial uh and industrial opportunities we are going to to uh uh continue working on additional taxes additional revenue, additional advocacy into the state. This is one piece of the
puzzle. So, uh, >> councelor uh, sorry, city manager, would you be willing to do a study with MHP? >> Absolutely. And I share I share with the city council uh, uh, that that we we conducted a a study uh, uh, with our our
strategic housing plan and it was published uh, uh, last summer. I shared it with you earlier today. And that study that was was wrapped up last summer basically said exactly the same thing that we we are doing here, right? The the uh inclusionary zoning is a
burden to all development, all housing development, right? That >> this new study would be to examine the proposed zoning to ensure that whatever we do is actually going to address it, right? So, you would be willing to do a a new study to to ensure that whatever
we're proposing and pushing forward is backed up by at least some of our housing advocates and experts. >> Absolutely. And we are touching base with with uh uh our own consultant who who is doing our our master plan, right? And and a lot of of the data that that
is is uh is making up this proposal has been uh uh looked at and analyzed by UTIL. uh UTIL has has a a consultant that is is very similar to to Mass Housing Partnership uh and has looked at you know a lot of these components of of
the the proposal. I think that that uh uh um it it it we failed I failed as a city manager. I failed as an administration to to not address this sooner. Right. Uh uh I I
waited until the cliff was was uh uh in front of us and and then I broke the glass. Right. This this is something that that that I've been hearing for a very long time. It is something that our city manager has has been a previous uh city manager has been hearing has been
hearing for a long time. Uh uh um this this should have be been uh done sooner. In the ordinance itself, the city council said that it should have been reviewed in 2024. Clearly it it was not right. Uh uh my concern is that uh um it
is a point of emergency and and as the city council has said uh any development takes a long time, right? Any development takes, you know, six to a year or or two years. So So any time
lost is real time is is is uh uh is real things that could be happening, right? uh uh and and my concern is is not about uh uh whether this is the the best proposal that that could be in front of the city council. In fact, I I I I put
forward on the city council that that let's proceed with this change. Give it a shot. Give it a shot. A and at the same time commit to an a a a process of an annual report that is published to the city council and and and says
basically what is the the the uh um the effects. This annual report could be done by UTIL. It it could also be done by uh mass housing partnerships. It it could be done by the MAPC, right? Uh and and and at that point we can be proactive
and we can measure you know what are the effects of of of the proposal. uh and and uh uh we can dial and regulate based on on on something that that is is happening. We are working off a proposal that was that was thought about in 2017,
right? This this should have been done a long time ago. Uh and and honestly, it's it's my failure that it it wasn't done sooner. Uh, councelor uh Dell, I >> I want to say first, thank you for all
the information that you've been sharing in your process with this um the way it is that you've gotten to the numbers is a little bit more clearer to me. And to echo what I believe councelor de Jesus was um stating um it's the potential
impacts that still have me a little worried um about the proposed change um in all the numbers it is that you shared. You also illustrated that you know hasn't been developing the most affordable units
over the past couple of years. So it's it's I hear you. Um, and I agreed to like a review that we definitely will need to to to continue to do to evaluate the impacts of any proposed change um in
the change as it exists in the neighboring cities that you've mentioned. Um, go ahead. >> Yeah. No, and I agree with you, right? I mean, we we we uh um I have met with a lot of community members and and I welcome accountability, right? I welcome
accountability. I I uh um now I I I believe everyone in Chelsea is focused on inclusionary zoning. I will tell you that two months ago, nobody was talking about inclusionary zoning. Uh and and it's a good thing. We I knew it was a problem. Ben knew that it was a problem. Our our our
development community knew that it was a problem, but but uh uh uh no nobody was talking about it, right? So so so we have we have opened up the the the the window, right? uh let air in and now we know that it's a problem. What we are
asking for is is is to let the horse out of the barn, right? Uh uh refer this back to the city council uh have a discussion at at the city council. Uh allow the planning board to have a discussion of of their own uh and
ultimately let this this very robust process happen. >> Go ahead, counselor. for clarification. If if we move this, this isn't us voting on this. >> Thank you for putting that out there. Could clerk, could you walk us through
so also the public understands what happens? What are the next steps in terms of sending this back to council? >> Your vote tonight will be on whether to refer it back to full counsel with a positive or negative recommendation. It does not mean that you are endorsing the
underlying order. It means you're endorsing moving it out of committee to the full council. If the majority of this committee decides to refer it to council with a recommendation, it does not mandate that the full council follow that recommendation. The full council could still choose to reject this
committee's recommendation if it chooses. You are not voting on whether you would support the underlying order. You're only voting on whether or not you agree to refer it to full counsel. And then if it comes before full counsel, you are still not voting on the underlying order. You are only voting to
refer it to the planning board. Only after planning has their public hearing and it comes back to council and you have your own public hearing. Only then are you voting on the merits of the underlying order itself. >> Thank you clerk counselor. >> And it is my understanding throughout
this process if we do refer it to back to the council that there'll still be ongoing discussion about this every step of the way. >> 100%. uh including with with some of the house m the housing experts that we are
are are talking about. So so we we we are are are scheduling a a panel. Uh um I I I have reached out to the head of of mass housing uh and have asked her to come to Chelsea and have a conversation with us. Uh these these conversations
are ongoing. I scheduled a a uh a tour of Suffach Downs uh uh of the council uh and we are going to schedule uh a lot of conversations over the next two months with the city council and the planning board. We are committed to this.
>> Uh, councelor Teshi. >> Yeah, ju just some final words. Again, if if this were before me today and I was being asked whether or not we want to implement this starting tomorrow in Chelsea, I would say no because we don't have enough information. But what I'm saying is that we should move it along and send this to the to the full
council. Um, either positive or negative uh recommendation. Um but to make sure that this goes through the channels again uh in the future after a public hearing and after it goes it goes through the planning board will have a chance at finally assessing with all the
the the information that city manager will provide as to whether or not we want to approve it um or not. So I would say at this moment you know you I feel um safe in my in my own conscious and
saying yes let's move it along. let's keep on talking about it and let's see, you know, how far we can get it. And if at the end of the day this does not work, we'll vote it down. But if it does work, then, you know, we we proceed u you know, hopefully maybe with some changes, but we don't know. Um so at this moment, I would just ask uh my
colleagues if uh if if we can we can move it along to the council for uh positive recommendation start out and go from there. >> Okay. So we will enter then a roll call. >> The motion before you is a motion from
council to refer the order as amended with council Robinson's amendment to the full council with a positive recommendation. >> Hold on councelor. >> Sorry. Um, and so this amendment that's
in front of us is in addition to the proposed zoning amendments that the city manager proposed as well to to from 50 to 100. It exempts the West
Chelsea area from 50 to 100. Okay. I I personally know that I mean I the overlay conversation is going to come up at some point. >> Um I know I know that's an area that we're looking to develop, but being that
we're we're teetering back and forth on whether or not 50 is a good number. The 100 number makes me a little nervous um and specific to that area when it comes to >> And to be clear, I don't think you're voting on that amendment tonight. You're you're voting to send it send everything
to the council. >> Yeah, I know. I just wanted that to be on the record. >> All right. Proceeding with a roll call. >> Again, the motion before you is to refer the underlying order back to council as amended with a positive recommendation for council adoption.
>> Council Taylor, >> yes. >> Yes. Councelor Rupo, >> yes. >> Yes. Councelor Himenez Rivera is absent. Councelor Hines, >> yes. Yes. Councilor Tenary Garcia. Absent. Councilor Tesh. >> Yes. >> Yes. Councelor Kelly Garcia. Absent. Councelor Sandigette. >> Yes. >> Yes. Council De Jesus.
>> Yes. >> Yes. Council Brown. Absent. And Council Robinson. >> Yes. >> With seven members voting in favor. Zero opposed. Three absent. Order is adopted. Recommendation will be referred back to full council with a positive recommendation that the order
be adopted as amended. >> All right. Seeing no other comments, I will close this meeting and we will have many more conversations on this. All right. Thank you, city manager.