New Haven Independent

The dispute comes down to two conjunctions and the wording of an agreement over how the hospital plans to develop a city block near its new $431 million cancer center.

“I’m frustrated,” city economic development chief Kelly Murphy (pictured) said late Wednesday afternoon when asked about a recent letter she sent to two aldermen detailing the dispute. “We’d like to see this go forward.” In the letter, Murphy wrote of being “most troubled” by what the city sees as the hospital’s foot-dragging and possible backing away from commitments — a characterization the hospital adamantly rejects.

The dispute centers on two still-unresolved details of the deal Yale-New Haven and the city struck a year ago to pave the way for approval of the larger cancer center project. The details have to do with the hospital’s promise to build new structures on two nearby blocks.

A year after the agreement, Yale-New Haven still hasn’t produced an approved plan to move forward with either block.

The biggest bone of contention concerned “Lot E,” bordering Howe Street between Frontage Road and Legion Avenue.

A development agreement signed by the city and the hospital calls for the hospital to build an 845-car parking garage “with a mix of retail, commercial and housing on Lot E.” At least that’s what it says on the first page in a section titled “recitals.” That’s an important “and.” The city wants all three components in the new Lot E.

In a May 11 letter to Murphy, Yale-New Haven Senior Vice-President Norm G. Roth wrote, “A residential component is not required for the Lot E” plan.

Furthermore the agreement calls for the hospital to “wrap” those offices or stores or apartments around the outside of the garage, to hide it from public view.

Yet, according to the letter Murphy wrote to the two aldermen (Carl Goldfield and Ed Mattison), on May 30, Roth appeared to backpedal from those agreements.

“I was most troubled by YNHH’s characterization of their obligations… for the Lot E Development” at a May 8, 2007, meeting, Murphy wrote. “First, Mr. Roth stated that the hospital only agreed to a parking garage on Lot E. Clearly, the ‘wrap’ of housing, retail and office was a critical component of the agreement of both the City and the community and is clearly defined in both the Development Agreement and the Land Disposition Agreement.”

Also, Murphy complained, after all this time the hospital has shown the city only “loosely defined concepts” for its plans for the blocks. By now, she said, the hospital should have long since submitted detailed letters of intent signed by both the hospital and its chosen developer, Boston-based Interncontinental. (Fusco Corporation is the developer for the Park Street block.)

Murphy also noted that the city still hasn’t seen detailed letters of intent signed for the second of the two parcels covered by the agreement, on Park Street, where the hospital promised to build a 165,000 square-foot medical office building.

The Hospital’s Side

“We’re delivering on every commitment we made,” responded hospital spokesman Vin Petrini, reached Monday night in London during a family vacation.

“The bottom line is we want the development to move forward. Without that parking garage, it would be impossible” to obtain permits to build the cancer center.

Petrini said the hospital is fully committed to the “wrap” concept to conceal the garage.

However, he said, the hospital does dispute the “and” interpretation about the mix of uses. He said the hospital interprets the agreement to require the inclusion of retail, housing, or office space in Lot E.

“The question is what is economically viable,” he said.

While the first page of the development agreement clearly uses “and” instead of “or” to describe the mix, another section of the agreement may support the hospital’s interpretation. On page 11, Section 3.02(c)(ii) states that the Lot E development will include “mixed-use space … which may include retail, office and housing.” Notice the word “may.”

Furthermore, the paragraph continues, “The composition and design of the mixed use space shall be determined taking into account the visual impact that the improvements will have on the surrounding neighborhood, market conditions and economic viability…” Notice those last two words.

Kelly Murphy said Wednesday that the city insists on all three uses in the mix — office, retail, and housing. Housing is important on that block, she said. Also, she said that hospital officials clearly promised to do all three in its statements at public hearings. In all private and public discussions the hospital and city had a clear understanding that the agreement includes all three uses for Lot E, she said.

In a May 3 letter to Murphy, Yale-New Haven’s Roth pinned some of the blame for the delays on the city. “Several design concepts for the development have been rejected by the city,” he wrote.

Murphy Wednesday pinned the blame right back on the hospital, saying that she has yet to receive any detailed proposals beyond vague drawings.

She contrasted that fact — and the more than nine months it has taken for the hospital to produce letters of intent to proceed with the two projects — with the pace of the Shartenberg development project downtown. The city picked a developer in February and had a letter of intent in may, she said.

“It shouldn’t be that complicated. It shouldn’t be nine months later and we’re nowhere on either of these projects,” Murphy said.

“I didn’t reject anything. You’ve got to show me something. You can’t just show me a drawing without showing me budgets and uses and construction schedules. Show me everything and we can talk about it. And live up to what is in the development agreement.”