Pirelli Hotel Plan Survives Surprise Attack

by Thomas Breen | Nov 15, 2018 8:34 am

(21) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: Business/ Economic Development, City Hall, Labor, Long Wharf, True Vote

A plan to convert the long-vacant and historic Pirelli Building into a 165-room hotel received approval from the City Plan Commission despite a one-hour push by labor-affiliated alders and city staff to stall the proposal. That was the upshot of Wednesday night’s regular monthly meeting of the City Plan Commission, which played out over nearly five hours on the second floor of City Hall. Commissioners voted 3-1 in favor of IKEA’s detailed plan and coastal site plan for the conversion of the historic Pirelli Building at 500 Sargent Dr. into a 165-room hotel with 129 dedicated parking spaces. Only around 10 minutes of the hour-long Pirelli section of the meeting were dedicated to IKEA’s actual plans for the iconic Marcel Breuer-designed Brutalist building, which was built in 1968 and has long sat vacant in a sea of parking lots off of Sargent Drive, serving as little more than a highway-facing billboard for IKEA’s latest home furniture products. As local attorney Jim Segaloff explained, IKEA has not yet found a developer for the site, but wants to tee up the property for any interested buyers by first receiving City Plan approval for the hotel conversion. The approved plans call for a 165-room hotel, 129 dedicated parking spaces, 200 square feet of bicycle storage in the bottom of the IKEA sign, stormwater management and landscaping improvements, a reconfiguration of IKEA’s existing 1,241-space surface lot, and the repair and cleaning up of the building’s facade. The proposal does not call for any changes to be made to the building’s exterior. “Drive by the Pirelli Building and for 20 years, it’s vacant,” said Segaloff. “We now all have an opportunity to fill it up. ... We have an opportunity to fill up the building, and put in a first-class hotel.” “Drive by the Pirelli Building and for 20 years, it’s vacant,” said Segaloff. “We now all have an opportunity to fill it up. ... We have an opportunity to fill up the building, and put in a first-class hotel.” The vast majority of the hearing was taken up instead by a passionate, repetitive, bewildered and bewildering debate among Segaloff and his colleague attorney Caleb Hamel (both of whom were representing IKEA), the City Plan Commission staff, and the five voting members of the City Plan Commission. The debate centered on which administrative body — the Board of Alders or the City Plan Commission — has proper legal jurisdiction to act on the IKEA proposal. As with debates over whether to overhaul city zoning rules and whether to withhold approval of a makeover of the Duncan Hotel, a strong sense in the room Wednesday night was that the intense wrangling had to do with unspoken as much as with spoken arguments and agendas. Hovering behind the IKEA hotel debate, though never mentioned explicitly, was Yale’s UNITE-HERE labor union, a powerful local political player that has close ties to aldermanic leadership and an effective ruling majority on the Board of Alders, and that has a direct interest in hotel worker organizing. UNITE HERE has sought to ensure that hotels built in New Haven have unionized workforces. The nominal source of the debate was a Sept. 16 letter sent by the seven leaders of the Board of Alders to city Economic Development Administrator Matthew Nemerson, requesting that the local economic development chief pull IKEA’s hotel conversion proposal from the City Plan Commission’s oversight and redirect it to the Board of Alders’ purview. The nominal source of the debate was a Sept. 16 letter sent by the seven leaders of the Board of Alders to city Economic Development Administrator Matthew Nemerson, requesting that the local economic development chief pull IKEA’s hotel conversion proposal from the City Plan Commission’s oversight and redirect it to the Board of Alders’ purview. The rationale the alders offered was that the proposed conversion of the vacant 108,000 gross-square-foot building into a hotel constituted a change of use within the Planned Development District (PDD) #100 zoning regulations that the alders passed in 2002 to help pave the way for IKEA’s move to Long Wharf. “We are aware through media reports that there is proposal for a change to the current use of the Pirelli Building in the IKEA PDD,” the Sept. 17 letter reads, “and it has been forwarded tot he City Plan Commission. As you know the practice is for changes to current uses in a PDD to be communicated to the Board of Alders for review, approval, and referral. “Given that that practice is the appropriate action for this matter,” it continues, “please remove it from the City Plan Commission agenda and communicate this proposal to the Board of Alders so that it may get proper consideration.” The letter is signed by West River Alder and Board of Alders President Tyisha Walker-Myers, Dixwell Alder and Board of Alders President Pro Tempore Jeanette Morrison, Whalley/Edgewood/Beaver Hills (WEB) Alder and Board of Alders Majority Leader Richard Furlow, Wooster Square Alder and Third Officer Aaron Greenberg, Hill Alder and Deputy Majority Leader Dave Reyes, Hill Alder and Black and Hispanic Caucus Chair Dolores Colon, and Newhallville Alder and Black and Hispanic Caucus Vice-Chair Delphine Clyburn. All were elected with the support of UNITE HERE; three of them have held leadership positions in or work for the union. Segaloff, who passed around thick packet of papers containing a copy of the alders’ letter, a legal brief he had written, and a copy of the 2002 PDD legislation, consistently criticized the alders’ reading of the law as incorrect. A hotel falls well within the list of sanctioned uses as defined by the 2002 PDD, he and Hamel argued again and again. That means that the City Plan Commission, not the Board of Alders, is the appropriate administrative body to review the detailed plan and coastal site plan proposals. “What’s the legal issue here?” Segaloff asked. “What’s behind this? What’s it all about?” Marchand, the aldermanic representative on the commission, and a UNITE HERE employee, asked commission Chair Ed Mattison to table IKEA’s proposal to give the alders and city staff more time to talk with Corporation Counsel about which body should take the lead on IKEA’s hotel plans. Marchand, the aldermanic representative on the commission, and a UNITE HERE employee, asked commission Chair Ed Mattison to table IKEA’s proposal to give the alders and city staff more time to talk with Corporation Counsel about which body should take the lead on IKEA’s hotel plans. Acting City Plan Director Michael Piscitelli agreed, saying that the City Plan staff had completed its technical review of IKEA’s submissions, but that the city was not prepared for a vote on the matter because of outstanding potential legal concerns. Mattison was initially sympathetic to that argument. “If there is an internal city disagreement,” he said, “we’re not going to vote on it.” He said that he did not want the City Plan Commission to decide on what was ultimately a difference in legal interpretations of the PDD. Segaloff pushed back. “Who doesn’t want a hotel here?” he asked. “I think we’re getting screwed here.” He said that he helped write the PDD law back in 2002, and that the law is clear: a hotel is a permitted use of the Pirelli building. The tide among the commissioners began to shift when City Plan Commissioner Leslie Radcliffe expressed concern about potentially abdicating the legal authority of the City Plan Commission at the mere request of seven alders. The tide among the commissioners began to shift when City Plan Commissioner Leslie Radcliffe expressed concern about potentially abdicating the legal authority of the City Plan Commission at the mere request of seven alders. “I’d like to see the letter myself,” she said, prompting Segaloff to distribute copies of the Sept. 17 missive from the alders. Mattison asked about what would happen if the commission tabled the matter for a month, giving the alders and the city a little more time to pin down Corporation Counsel for a definitive legal opinion on the matter. Hamel pointed out and City Plan Commission staffer Anne Hartjen confirmed that the commission has to act on a proposal within 65 days of its submission. Since the commission received IKEA’s proposal on Sept. 20, Hartjen said, the commission simply could not push off a vote until December. A lack of action at Wednesday night’s meeting would by default approve the hotel conversion request. Since the commission received IKEA’s proposal on Sept. 20, Hartjen said, the commission simply could not push off a vote until December. A lack of action at Wednesday night’s meeting would by default approve the hotel conversion request. But, Piscitelli cautioned, the city needed a little bit more time to hammer out a “timing issue” behind the scenes. The commission could always ask the applicants if they would be open to an extension of that 65-day window, thereby giving the city a bit more time to decide. “Is the use permitted in the PDD?” Radcliffe asked the City Plan staff point blank. “We would not have written a report or even accepted an application if we did not think it fit the regulations,” Hartjen replied. “I think we should act within our jurisdiction,” Radcliffe said. The commissioners called a vote. Radcliffe, Mattison, and commission alternate Jonathan Wharton, who is a Southern Connecticut State University (SCSU) professor and the former chair of the Republican Town Committee, voted for the hotel conversion plan. Commission alternate Elias Estabrook, who works as a jobs coach for the local UNITE HERE-affiliated job-placement group New Haven Works, voted against the proposal. Estabrook said he voted no because he did not have confidence one way or the other that the commission had adequate legal standing to rule on the matter. Marchand abstained from the vote. After the vote, Alder Furlow, who attended Wednesday’s meeting for a separate hearing, said he thought the alder leadership had acted appropriately in sending the September letter to Nemerson and in seeking out Corporation Counsel’s opinion. He said the Board of Alders has broad authority and jurisdiction, but that the intent of the letter was never to circumvent the authority of the City Plan Commission. After the vote, Alder Furlow, who attended Wednesday’s meeting for a separate hearing, said he thought the alder leadership had acted appropriately in sending the September letter to Nemerson and in seeking out Corporation Counsel’s opinion. He said the Board of Alders has broad authority and jurisdiction, but that the intent of the letter was never to circumvent the authority of the City Plan Commission. He also noted that there are currently two other hotels on Long Wharf: La Quinta Inn and New Haven Village Suites. “Now there’s going to be three on the block,” he said. City economic development chief Nemerson said he had expected the IKEA team to be open to tabling the issue until next month’s meeting. Instead, he said, IKEA pushed the issue, and ultimately prevailed. “In New Haven, we want to be very respectful of our relationship with the Board of Alders,” Nemerson said. But, from an economic development perspective, he said, he is thrilled to see a long-vacant building finally on the brink of reuse. He said that one of the very first things he did upon assuming office in 2013 was meet with IKEA to talk about how best to develop the Pirelli Building. “We’re delighted that it’s going to be developed as something,” he said.

Share this story with others.

Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

posted by: AverageTaxpayer on November 15, 2018 9:00am @ NHI — Speaking of hotel developments, any update on LiveWorkLearnPray and the Coliseum site? The problem with what the Unions, whoops, Alders did here, is that they aren’t playing by the rules. Trying to twist, contort, delay, bully, prevaricate, etc, - on a project the vast majority of us want to see happen - is a gross abuse of power. Only THEY DON’T CARE about right or wrong, or if they are putting their interests in front of the public’s. Shame on them.

posted by: westville man on November 15, 2018 9:22am Can someone clarify what Attorney Hamel’s role was in this debate? Whom did he represent and was he arguing for approval? [Note from author: Hamel and Segaloff were working together to represent IKEA. Sorry if that was not clear in the original wording of the article!]

posted by: LookOut on November 15, 2018 9:28am Disgusting how the Union Alders are not representing the wishes (and best interest) of those that they represent. Somehow (thank you for your help NHI) the people of New Haven need to be educated about the damage that the Union Alders are causing to the city. They should be voted out if they can not, or will not, work for New Haven rather than the Union.

posted by: robn on November 15, 2018 9:53am This and hundreds of other small but meaningful decisions prove that these alders are acting in their own financial best interests and are corrupt and therefore unfit for office.

Resign Tyisha Walker-Myers,

Jeanette Morrison

Richard Furlow

Aaron Greenberg

Dave Reyes

Dolores Colon

Delphine Clyburn

posted by: newhavenishome on November 15, 2018 10:05am Thank you Leslie Radcliffe for putting New Haven first, over and above UNITE HERE. The good of this city needs to be the priority of every Commission, civic employee and Board of Alderman. I really hope that we can change the make up of the BOA in the next election. It sickens me how they interject themselves and try to hijack all dealings with the sole purpose of union building.



Furlow has no clue if he thinks there is not a need for additional hotel rooms in the greater New Haven area, especially right off I-95. He really should stick to the small stuff, like fighting electronic billboards. Of course, if that billboard was erected and maintained by union laborers, he would be all for it. Wake up New Haven, take back control of the BOA from UNITE HERE!

posted by: Lorirobin on November 15, 2018 10:34am First , is a new hotel needed ? If yes, then it’s a great use for the building. Second, why wasn’t this issue resolved between the Alders and City Planning Commission before this hearing? Didn’t they have over a month to decide which group is responsible?

Does a hotel fit in with the recent redevelopment for the area? Will there be enough parking spaces for guests and staff?

posted by: IloveMYcity203 on November 15, 2018 10:39am The article quotes Alderman Furlo2 saying, “He also noted that there are currently two other hotels on Long Wharf: La Quinta Inn and New Haven Village Suites. “Now there’s going to be three on the block,” he said.” Assuming this guy is from New Haven, hopefully born and raised like I was, I would REALLLLLY hope that he realizes that New Haven Village Suites and La Quinta Inn is not your typical hotel that anyone with any type of standards would want to stay at. New Haven Village Suites used to be really upscale back when I was a teenager. They still look nice from the outside, but I haven’t stayed at them in over 20years, so I’m 50/50 on that one, but La Quinta Inn?? Give me a effin break dude. Let’s be honest and keep it real!

Anddd why are they worried about inserting a union at a hotel that’s not even built yet? Disgusting. In my personal opinion, unions are not what they used to be, which was for the people. It’s more like, “One person works harder than the next, and the person who does less work still gets that reward (a raise) because of union contracts.” Then of course, there is the people who make backdoor deals to benefit themselves and their cronies.

With all due respect, I grew up in the hill all of my life, and this will be great for the city. I prefer to stay in a 4 star hotel and not La Quinta Inn thank you very much Alderman Furlough. The City of New Haven plays so many politics, it’s disgusting to have people who know nothing about anything try and make decisions to run the city. Keep exposing them NHI! Keep up the great work, and thanks for keeping us informed.

[excuse any typos, improper sentences, or grammatical errors;I did not proofread]

posted by: wendy1 on November 15, 2018 11:10am I agree with ILoveMy City….excellent commentary We have fantasy city planning.

posted by: opin1 on November 15, 2018 11:15am I support and admire the work that unions do in representing their workers in negotiating pay and benefits with their employers; absolutely necessary in that regard. However I find it unethical how they use their collective organizing power to attain positions in government and then use that power to push the agenda of the unions when that agenda is sometimes in conflict with what’s in the best interest of their constituents. If you are an elected alder, you were elected to represent and fight for the best interests of the ward/neighborhood you represent - NOT other causes you care about in other aspects of your life. In this case, are the union alders trying to delay the project because it’s in the best interest of their constituents? or are they trying to delay the project because of their passion for supporting their union? At the very least, if these alders are known supporters of unions that have an issue with the developer (UNITE HERE has sought to ensure that hotels built in New Haven have unionized workforces) they should recuse themselves from the decision making process. It’s shameful and unethical not to. The guilty alders don’t care if they abuse their power.

posted by: Ulmus Civitas on November 15, 2018 11:24am kudos to Breen for making a clear distinction between Alders who are Union owned and do not represent the people’s best interests. i concur with the comments. let us elect new Alders who are not working for anybody but New Haven residents.

posted by: Dennis Serf on November 15, 2018 12:07pm This is sickening. The UniteHere Alders have sunk to a new low. The taxpayers/residents of New Haven must come before special interests Like most of you I work full-time, lots of family obligations, house stuff, far from wealthy, etc. In other words, I’m just like you. In the last 2 months I’ve spent about 80 hours and $500 building out a website and filing FOIA requests with the City to hold our elected officials accountable. The website doesn’t ask for donations, isn’t controversial, more purple than red or blue. Yet, people won’t take 1 minute to sign-up or join the website. And we wonder why things don’t change? Maybe the politicians will listen if we had 1,000 or 2,000 or 3,000 people organized and committed to not voting for any candidate who puts special interests above Elm City residents If you really want change, then please, please, please, please sign-up!!!!! Thank you,

Dennis Serfilippi

https://newhavenct.squarespace.com/

posted by: Kevin McCarthy on November 15, 2018 12:12pm I support unions; my father was a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers his entire work life. But the actions of UNITE-HERE and its allies in this context are wrong. Elias is a good guy who takes his role on the commission seriously. I believe he was sincere in stating his reason for his vote. But given his day job, he should have recused himself to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Average Taxpayer, I suspect part of the reason why the LWLP developers are sitting on their hands is that they want to see what happens at Long Wharf and at the Church Street South site. If a hotel goes in at the Pirelli building they could argue (reasonably) that this is a material change in circumstances that would allow them to renegotiate their agreement with the city. Lorirobin, as a general rule, need is irrelevant to zoning decisions. This is particularly true when a land use is allowed as of right, as appears to be the case here.The Long Wharf plan is conceptual - it does not direct that specific uses go into specific locations. But I think the hotel would complement the types of uses contemplated by the plan. Finally, hotel guests would use the adjacent IKEA parking lot when the hotel spaces are full. Nationally, the average hotel occupancy rate in 2017 was about 66%, so this would probably happen infrequently.

posted by: jim1 on November 15, 2018 12:16pm I think it should be made into a hotel, with 1/2 of the rooms for homeless, and they city will save money. { not having police chase the homeless out of the parks, out of ER at Yale, etc. {they don’t have cars so the parking is no problem. It has just been sitting there for so long anything is better than what we have. Even a pizza, or a Subway, or a liquor store, etc.. Look at the room for storage,

posted by: Esbey on November 15, 2018 12:18pm @avetaxpayer mentions the Coliseum site. Gov. Malloy was insisting for quite awhile that a hotel deal be inked for that site prior to funding necessary infrastructure improvements. The hotel never materialized, and I guess we have moved on to accept a giant surface parking lot in a prime location. But I think we can guess one reason a hotel deal was never signed. That high-profile deal would have had a giant “X” on it for the alders who represent Unite-HERE instead of the city of New Haven. They would have insisted on unionization, a unionized hotel could not survive in the face of entirely non-union competition, developers foresee this and, voila, no hotel and (because of Malloy’s made-up rule) no infrastructure, no progress, no taxes, no jobs. Luckily, a number of smaller hotel deals have managed to (barely!) escape the Alder’s clutches. This was another close call. We probably don’t need the Coliseum hotel any more, but by now that deal looks entirely dead anyway. “Unionism in one town” is not going to work. If you want to help low-paid hotel workers: advocate for a higher minimum wage, advocate for universal health care, advocate for better city schools, advocate for increased housing supply, advocate for restoring union rights at the national level. Don’t waste your time, and you city’s potential, trying to chase hotels out of town via threats of uneconomic Alder-enforced union deals.

posted by: Gretchen Pritchard on November 15, 2018 12:37pm And then there is the separate question of why make such a shibboleth of preserving a really ugly building, built in the wrong place, in a setting that is still laid out in a way that makes any kind of enlightened urban design pretty much impossible. Any plan that centers on acres of surface parking lot with things sticking up (or sprawling low, like IKEA) in the middle of them, is intrinsically regressive. It seems like we will never, ever, be able to undo the damage done by the hubristic “model city” planners back in the 1960s.

posted by: Ryn111 on November 15, 2018 1:04pm AGAIN, the union is not concerned with the interests of average citizens. We need to vote them out!

posted by: UrbanPlanner on November 16, 2018 1:04pm Any lawyers out there? Wondering if there might be a way to file suit against the board of alders, the specific alders personally failing to represent constituents, and / or UNITE HERE directly. This is such a shame! The longer these alders that have hijacked the government play this out, the harder it is for private development and developers to do any large scale projects in New Haven. To table something for 1 additional month with tens of millions of dollars on the line could mean 6 figures of interest in added costs, not to mention legal fees etc. In a rising interest rate market it could mean the cost of this could exceed seven figures. Then people wonder why there are so many abandoned lots around town or not more development. Who can possibly deal with all this uncertainty? Its not ideas that magically convert into developments; there is a business to these developments that require large amounts of financing and New Haven, and specifically the terrorist board of alders, is ruining it for everyone. At a minimum EVERYONE IN NEW HAVEN SHOULD VOTE AGAINST ANYONE CONNECTED TO UNITE HERE

posted by: Bubbles on November 16, 2018 1:42pm Unite-Here is like a slow growing cancer. They serve no benefit and will kill large tax revenue producing projects

if they can’t get their union jobs. New Haven will become a back water city with no chance for a positive future unless

these people get voted out of office. New Haven needs to do away with this form of government and create a system where you have a strong mayor.

posted by: budman on November 17, 2018 8:14am Don’t boo, vote! Vote them all out and save our city. The time is now to save our city. Form these alders abs and city staff that does not have the best interest in the city.

posted by: Hill Resident on November 18, 2018 2:54am Every ward that has a Unite Here employed/union backed alder should ask them WHY they want to hold up the Pirelli hotel project and other developments like it. Tell them to be transparent to their constituents they are supposed to represent, NOT the Union. Are they trying to get a promise of a neutrality agreement from the owners ... that they won’t oppose the unionizing of the workers? Remember what they tried with the Hotel Duncan. Too often the Union backed alders put the unions interest above that of the residential population of New Haven. And it is wrong to try to force the Unite Here agenda on the people ... like you KNOW better than us what is in our best interest. You build the numbers in the union, you collect more dues, you garner more political power, and you become just like the politicians you claim ignore the voice of the people. Alders - reevaluate your position and responsibilities ... who were you elected to serve? And if your alders are not serving you - call them out ... not just in the comments section. Call their phone or send and email, and tell them their days are numbered!!!