Markeshia Ricks Photo
Yale attorneys press their case.
A parking dispute that has held up construction and job creation in town inched closer to resolution, but only amid new procedural contention between Yale and a union-backed alder.
The latest chapter in the ongoing saga occurred at the monthly City Plan Commission held Wednesday night at City Hall.
The City Plan Commission had the opportunity at the meeting to approve a staff recommendation to the Board of Alders in favor of an overall parking plan Yale University has submitted for its Central/Science Hill campus.
Alders backed by Yale’s UNITE HERE local unions have used a newly amended section of the city’s zoning ordinance to hold up Yale construction projects pending approval of that parking plan — and approval of that plan has dragged on for months. It has become a proxy for broader Yale labor-management battles and town-gown concerns.
The latest step was to have City Plan vote on the parking plan and forward a recommendation to the Board of Alders, which plans to hold a hearing June 29 about whether to give formal approval. Until the parking plan is approved, Yale can’t move forward with construction of a new 280,000 square-foot science building at Whitney, Prospect and Sachem Streets in the Science Hill area.
Wednesday night City Plan did vote to forward that parking plan to the Board of Alders for consideration.
But members decided to do so without recommending that the alders approve it.
That’s what both sides argued about Wednesday night’s meeting.
Commissioners Radcliffe, Marchand and DiAdamo.
Westivlle Alder Adam Marchand, who represents alders on the City Plan Commission, Wednesday refused — to the consternation of Yale’s attorneys — to vote for the parking plan with a favorable recommendation attached to it. But he did agree to vote to send it to the alders; had he voted against doing that, it could have further stalled the science building project.
The commission barely had a quorum at Wednesday’s meeting, with only four members in attendance. Commissioner Maricel Ramos-Valcarcel, who works for Dimeo Construction, recused herself from the discussion and vote on the advisory report. That left only Marchand, and Commissioners Leslie Radcliffe and Kevin DiAdamo to make the decision.
Both Radcliffe and DiAdamo said they supported sending the report to alders with a favorable recommendation. Marchand, who is among the Yale union backed alders butting heads with the university, said he would not support it unless the advice to approve the overall parking plan was removed.
“I think that this report is extremely helpful,” Marchand said Wednesday. “I would also note that the recommendation to convene [a parking] working group is something that I certainly agree with and I think others on the board agree with also. I think that we should approve a positive report. There is one technical problem that I have, in that because I serve on the Board of Alders and I serve on that joint committee, I’m not yet prepared to recommend to my colleagues to approve the overall parking plan because there is information that the joint [Board of Alders] committee chairs have requested that we have not yet seen.”
Marchand pointed out that the a joint meeting of the Economic Development and Legislation Committees of the Board of Alders is slated for June 29 for a public hearing to consider the parking plan. He said he didn’t want to be on the record suggesting that he supported approval of the overall parking plan, when that is what he and alders would be eventually deciding.
“I cannot vote on a report that says ‘recommends approval’ because I feel like I would be pre-judging something that I’m going to be in a position to have some judgement over later,” he said. “So that puts us in a little bit of a dilemma because we have a bare quorum on this item right now because our colleague recused herself and without me voting yes, this item can’t pass, which is not something I foresaw but here we are.”
Marchand said if they had more voting members present Wednesday night, he could vote against the report, his colleagues who were in support could vote in favor of it and send it on to alders with the favorable language.
“I don’t want to like keep this — I want to move this forward,” he said. “The university is doing its work to make sure to give its presentation and prepare the information for the joint committee and I look forward to the public testimony. We should keep this process moving along, of course, given that we don’t have three votes for the report as it is written because I’m not going to vote for it given the words ‘and therefore the commission recommends approval.’ I would propose that we remove those … six words and keep the report exactly the same otherwise because its a useful report. It affirms the utility of an overall parking plan, it says that the overall parking plan is supposed to do these things, and so it’s a positive report.”
Yale attorney Joseph Hammer challenged Marchand over why he was seemingly treating this application differently from other City Plan matters on which he has voted before that were later considered by the Board of Alders.
“I believe you have participated in those instances,” Hammer said.
“I have,” Marchand said.
“So, with all due respect, in those situations you have in essence made a recommendation to the aldermanic body, which you would be later participating in,” Hammer said.
Hammer urged Marchand to move the report with the favorable approval. He noted that the commission had no evidence that contradicts the City Plan staff’s assertion in its report that the parking plan is “in the best interest of the City because it makes efficient use of limited available land for parking, consolidates parking in facilities which can be served by transit and shuttles, keeps parking facilities from being located in congested areas, promotes safety by reducing the number of curb cuts across sidewalks required, reduces the total number of parking spaces required and improves the walkability of the campus and the City.”
“As a practical manner, reviewing a situation that has already been subjected to considerable time being elapsed and delayed as you know has an effect on other applications, so the practical effect of you not participating is real,” Hammer added.
Marchand said ultimately it was the number of votes driving his decision and in order to move the otherwise positive report forward he would support it only with the advice removed.
Yale’s Karen King and Joseph Hammer after the meeting.
“I’m proposing that we move the staff report,” he said. “I don’t think changing a few words from this staff report will have any effect on the speed of this item moving through the Board of Alders. I understand the university’s concern about the projects waiting for this process to come through. We’ve heard that loud and clear. I don’t want to keep this here. I want to move it along. I just find myself in the position that I cannot vote for a staff report that includes those very few words.”
Commissioners Radcliffe and DiAdamo ultimately agreed to move the report forward without the recommendation so that it wouldn’t stall. She pointed out that the commission has been known to vote contrary to the recommendation of staff.
“It’s what’s in the report that is important,” she said.
"Marchand, who is among the Yale union backed alders butting heads with the university,"
Is Marchand "union backed", or does he literally work for that union? Unclear from the article.
How do Commissioners decide when to abstain from voting? The DIMEO-affiliated commissioner recused herself from a decision like this, involving an employer. When do the other Commissioners do that, when their employers are also involved? Just curious.