Cambridge Planning Board Urges Swift Courthouse Remediation, Demolition of Opposition Talking Points

On Tuesday, August 13th, the Cambridge Planning Board convened to consider whether to recommend a lease of 420 parking pass for the First Street Garage to Leggat McCall (LMP), the developer working to revitalize the derelict Sullivan Courthouse building that looms over East Cambridge.

The issue was familiar to the Planning Board, which held extensive hearings on the Courthouse project over a year in 2014 before issuing LMP a special permit to proceed with the project. That permit required LMP to secure a long-term lease for 420 parking passes in the city-owned garage before it could begin construction. During hearings in 2014, Planning Board members, many of whom remain on the Board today, urged LMP to use the garage for its parking needs and expressed hope that the city and the developer would come to a fair agreement.

A long legal battle delayed the opportunity for LMP to negotiate lease terms with city until late 2017, but the developer has since offered a total of $77.5 million in financial benefits in exchange for a 30-year lease of 420 garage passes, an amount that represents an estimated additional $67 million above what the city would earn from the garage spaces if it turned down the lease.

During the hearing, the Planning Board heard comments from the public, with one reporter tallying comments in support of of the lease outnumbering comments opposed by two-to-one.

Residents who support the Courthouse redevelopment plan stepped up their organizing efforts recently in response to what many see as dishonest tactics by a few local politicians and attempts to saddle the neighborhood with the toxic, blighted building for another decade. Opponents of the plan presented their best case to the Board, which depended on familiar and often refuted arguments suggesting that the garage doesn’t have enough space to accommodate the lease or that it wasn’t built in part to support the Courthouse structure next door, or that the Courthouse can magically be transformed into affordable housing units or a park, or something, if only the city rejects the parking lease. Conspicuously, the elected officials leading the opposition campaign, increasingly criticized by residents and other politicians for rallying constituents to their cause with false and inflammatory claims, chose not to attend.

The six Planning Board members listened attentively to public comments and then began their own discussion, which consisted of 20 solid minutes of statements in support of the lease they urged and the plans they approved in 2014.

And while many expected the Board to keep faith with its previous rulings, what may have surprised was the time and effort that Board Members devoted to refuting the most common, and most important, arguments presented by the opposition. In so doing, the Planning Board not only sent a unanimous recommendation forward to the City Council in support of the First Street Garage, but an unambiguous clarification of the facts surrounding the Courthouse project for the Council’s consideration.

Those facts, supported by comments from Planning Board members, include the following:

• The First Street Garage was built in part for the Courthouse.
• The Planning Board always preferred that LMP lease space in the garage.
• A lease is a lease. No one is “giving” anything to LMP and it’s disingenuous to claim otherwise.
• LMP has offered a substantial benefits package in exchange for the lease.
• There is adequate space in the First Street Garage to support the lease.
• The Courthouse is an environmental hazard to residents.
• Rehabbing the Courthouse and removing the environmental hazard is the biggest benefit of the parking lease.
• There is no real plan to build a giant amount of affordable housing on the site. None.
• There is no funding buy the building from the state on offer from any public entity. None.
• If LMP were replaced by another developer, the building would sit and rot for another five to ten years.
• The Planning Board is not going to let the parking issue stop the Courthouse project.
• The Planning Board wants the City Council to approve the parking lease.
• Approving the lease is a win-win for everyone.

Given the Planning Board’s familiarity with the issue, gained over more than five years of consideration, Courthouse opponents attempting to refute any of the above points face a high evidentiary standard.

QUOTES FROM MEMBERS OF THE CAMBRIDGE PLANNING BOARD :

Ted Cohen, Vice Chair:

“Maybe in my heart of hearts it would be great if we had a huge building of affordable housing, but I don’t see anyone who’s coming up with eighty to a hundred million dollars to purchase the building from the state and then clean out all the asbestos. And I think looking for the perfect project prevents us from doing the very good.”

“All along it was anticipated and it was the preference of the Planning Board at the time that parking be provided in the First Street Garage, which had been built in part to service the Courthouse.”

“If this project does not go forward, I fear it is at least another five to ten to who knows how many years before something is done with the building and…it is going to continue to be a health problem to many people.”

“I was also impressed by the comment that the East Cambridge businesses in the area have been hurting ever since the Courthouse closed.”

“I see no alternative and I think it’s a very good alternative for the city to lease these 420 spaces and to hopefully let this project go through and hopefully in a very timely manner.”

Hugh Russell:

“We looked at the plans from Leggat McCalll and decided, if you were going to do what they were going to do, they were very good plans. And we thought the appropriate place for parking was the First Street Garage, and my own personal feeling was that the garage was built to help service that building.“

“It would seem to be really strange to say this garage that was built to service this building and now under our Planning Board decision…needs a lease…it sort of seems to me really strange to say “no, no, somebody else should use those spaces.” So I think that if we believe in the process that’s gone on, that it’s been an appropriate and legal process, we really have to recommend this piece…”

Mary Flynn:

“I was involved in the UDAG grant many, many years ago…and it’s true, really that was the intent that the garage would serve the courthouse and some of the businesses that would move into the area and that certainly the idea that residents would park there, too. But, I think that the idea at the time was that providing the parking for the other businesses would allow for more on-street parking for the neighbors.”

“I think the idea of approving the lease, which in my mind is a lease, it’s a way of using our assets to our benefit. It is not giving it away. And in fact I think we’ve got quite a good package in terms of public benefit that is being provided as part of the lease terms. Again, I think that is a positive use of our assets.”

“I think it makes a great deal of sense to move forward.”

Steve Cohen:

“If the site of the Courthouse were vacant and it had come before us to discuss what’s the best thing to build on the site, I don’t think we would approve a building of this height, and there clearly are people who wish this building were not there, but that’s not what we are here to do today…The building is there. …we have had extensive discussion about the building and the future of the building and we have decided and it’s been concluded that the Courthouse project will go forward. So for those who are looking at this secondary parking issue as a means to scuttle the Courthouse project, that’s not going to happen.”

“So the only question is whether this is an appropriate use of the city’s parking spaces, and we’ve heard testimony from the city that it is an appropriate use, that some of this parking was to some extent designated for the former Courthouse building. We’ve heard that there is adequate capacity in the building. We haven’t really heard any persuasive testimony to the contrary, and therefore I think that we have to make our decision based on the testimony and the analysis and ultimately the assurance that is given to us by our city staff who specialize in this and are experts on analysis of parking demand and capacity.”

“Is there adequate capacity in this garage to serve the needs of the new Courthouse development without unreasonably or unduly compromising other needs in the neighborhood? The answer I have heard staff is that, yes, there is an adequate capacity.”

Louis J. Bacci, Jr.:

“The addition of the 24 affordable units pushes it over the top.”

“That first floor retail has sat vacant for too long.”

“I have never had a problem getting a parking spot in this garage. It just doesn’t happen.”

“The whole project together, very robust community benefits. Just the rehabbing of this blighted building in East Cambridge is the biggest community benefit. It makes no sense to leave this building sitting for another decade with a possible offer from someone. It doesn’t make any sense.”

“Rehabbing [the courthouse] — everyone has spoken about the environmental problems — is the only way to get it back into compliance. This is a win-win all around.”

Catherine Preston Connolly, Chair:

“I think this project made sense when we voted on the Courthouse Special Permit some years ago. That was based on the assumption that it was a legally pre-existing non-conforming structure and was therefore kind of taken as a given. That’s been reaffirmed in the courts.”

“I think the proposal to use those spaces to support that building is what they were built for originally, not exclusively, and what we’ve heard is that the garage will not be exclusively used for that building.”

“I do think the seventy-seven million plus of community benefits that are detailed are significant not the least of which is not only the 24 [affordable housing units] here, but the substantial contribution to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, the dedication of space for seniors and the senior parking program. I think there are a lot of really good benefits that are being given to the city here that makes it in my opinion disingenuous to call this “giving something to the developer”. The developer is, you know, they’re buying a benefit, and it certainly benefits them or they wouldn’t be doing it. But, the city, as has been noted, is also getting a substantial benefit, and as was noted by a couple of my colleagues, when we looked at the project…this was our preferred location [for parking]. We think it serves the building best. We think it has the least impact on the neighborhood to have the parking at this location. And we did squeeze the parking down to as small a number as my colleagues would let me get away with. “

“I really do think that this makes a lot of sense.“