Opinion ID: 1990985
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The parking cap.

Text: The University's 1990 Campus Plan, as approved by the BZA, provided for an on-campus parking cap of 4080 spaces. In the 2000 Plan which it proposed to the Board, the University stated, inter alia: This 2000 plan maintains the [University's] commitment [to reduce traffic traversing through local neighborhoods]. . . by maintaining the campus parking cap. (Emphasis added.) The University added that [t]he campus parking supply is limited to a maximum capacity of 4080 spaces. Curiously, in Condition 15 of its original order of March 29, 2001, the BZA converted the cap (or maximum) of 4080 spaces into a floor (or minimum). Expressing concern that the supply of off-street parking on campus may be insufficient to ensure that the surrounding neighborhoods are not adversely affected by University-related parking that may spill over from campus to the neighborhoods, the Board ordered the University to maintain at least 4,080 off-street parking spaces within the campus boundaries to avoid encouraging additional cars off-campus. (Emphasis added.) In other words, the Board's position suddenly changed, in substance, from 4081 spaces are too many to 4079 spaces are too few. The affected community groups had received no notice that this startling change from cap to floor was being contemplated. Led by intervenor Hillandale Homeowners Association, the University's neighbors requested the BZA to reconsider its order. Their request was supported by the Office of Planning and by the Department of Public Works. The proponents of the motion pointed out that all of the traffic studies in the record supported or presupposed the continuation of the cap, which the University had itself proposed. Indeed, the University's expert witness on traffic had testified that the campus plan (with the cap of 4080 spaces) will not have an adverse effect on traffic or parking in the area and that [f]irst and foremost, the University will maintain its 4080 space parking cap. Notwithstanding his testimony, however, the University opposed the motion for reconsideration, thus putting itself in the unusual position of being the only adversary of the plan which it had itself proposed. In response to the motion for reconsideration, the BZA apparently recognized that it had made a mistake. One of the Board members stated: I think that the record would not support the language that is in our order at the present time, which says that [the University] shall maintain at least 4,080 off-street parking spaces. I believe that was a drafting error and is not supported by the evidence in the record. (Emphasis added.) [23] In its order of August 6, 2001, and apparently in conformity with the drafting error analysis, the Board wrote that upon reconsideration, [the Board] concurs with the neighborhood associations, OP, and DPW that Condition 15 should be revised to reflect that the supply of off-street parking places on campus should not exceed 4080. (Emphasis added.) The Board then revised Condition 15 in its August 6, 2001, Order on Reconsideration to read as follows: The Applicant shall maintain a parking inventory of 4,080 off-street parking spaces within the campus boundary, and shall ensure that not more than one percent of the parking inventory is taken out of service at any one time. The University now argues that in finally adopting the cap of 4080 spaces urged by the University and its traffic expert, the Board acted upon factually unsupported estimates and suppositions of University neighbors, which were based on nothing more than their own preconceived and generalized notions of parking problems in the area. In light of the history that we have recited, the University's position is not well taken. We conclude that Revised Condition 15, if construed as a cap and only as a cap, would be supported by substantial evidence and would not be arbitrary or capricious. Notwithstanding the imprecise phrasing of Revised Condition 15, and its omission of no more than, or words to that effect, we would be disinclined under most circumstances to agree with the University that the Board's Order on Reconsideration requires the University to provide 4080 spaces, no more and no less. Such a construction would ignore the preceding discussion in the Board's order and would be contrary to common sense; the BZA could not have meant, one would suppose, that the University must provide precisely 4080 spaces. Nevertheless, the language of Revised Condition 15 tends to support the improbable construction placed on it by the University, for the inclusion of the provision that no more than one percent of the parking inventory may be out of service at any one time makes no sense unless the 4080 spaces were intended as a minimum. [24] Because, in our view, this number cannot reasonably be both a maximum and a minimum, we must vacate Revised Condition 15 and direct the Board, on remand, to clarify it.