Council Approves Final Environmental Impact Report for Two Hotels in Colorado Hill Project

The Pasadena City Council last night approved the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)for the “Colorado Hotel” project at 1347-1355 East Colorado Boulevard and 39 North Hill Avenue, and 1336 East Colorado Boulevard, paving the way for a new major hotel project at the sites near Pasadena City College. The proposed project, with conditions, will now move to the design commission for approval. The project includes two of a total of five hotels currently in development in the city.

This project, developed by J&K Plus Investments, will sit on the former site of the Robert Loud Ford dealership. The two buildings—a north parcel and a south parcel—will face each other across Colorado Boulevard at Holliston. According to the submitted plans, the north parcel will house a 350,000 square-foot, 375-room hotel with a full ballroom and conference rooms, as well as ground level shops and stores. The smaller south parcel, as proposed, will house a 150-room hotel with stores and shops in a 90,000 total square-foot footprint.

According to the developers’ attorney, Richard McDonald, one of the hotels would most likely be a Hilton hotel property. A representative of  the proposed hotel management, Carl Bolte, was at the Council meeting, and introduced himself to the Council.

According to the presentation by Tracy Steinkruger, senior planner, the approval of the FEIR would change the zoning of the site from ECSP-CG-2 and RM-48-PK, as part of the East Colorado Specific Plan, to a Planned Development. Though the original plans called for a hotel to be built as part of the south parcel, attorney Richard McDonald told the council that the developers were leaning towards a facility aimed at attracting conferences and seminars from nearby Caltech and PCC.

Charles Hong, Trustee for the nearby Holliston United Methodist Church, spoke out in opposition to the project, however, citing noise, traffic, and the rooftop bars, as well as the lack of a traffic signal leading to the site entrance.

Asked Hong, “The attorney for the project (Richard McDonald) says that there would be an impact on revenue for the city? What is that impact and how would you measure it?” Hong also asked the council, “How do you know that PCC and Caltech even want this?”

McDonald responded that both Caltech and PCC had expressed an interest in booking conferences at the planned property.

‘We’ve met with the church,” McDonald told the council. “We changed stuff to meet their concerns,” he said, “but we refused to help them with money, as they requested.”

Council member Margaret McAustin, who eventually voted to approve the recommendation, also asked, “My first sense was that it is too big, but after consulting with architects, I can understand the plans better. But, added McAustin, “How can we be sure that these plans are the project that we will get?”

After being reassured that the plans are unlikely to change without numerous approvals along the way, McAustin said, “I think these are excellent conditions of approval, and we are creating something very special here.”

The Planning Commission had previously recommended in July that the City Council approve the staff-recommended alternative of the project, called “Alternative 3,” with additional recommended conditions of approval.

Council member John Kennedy also questioned whether there was a market for the project, but said, “Overall I am pleased. We should try hard to make this work.”

According to the Planning Department report, the new conditions would “enhance the pedestrian experience and improve pedestrian circulation at and near the designated valet court through the use of alternative paving materials that distinguish pedestrian versus automobile areas”

During construction, the project site would also be evaluated for compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance Six months following the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, Pool access would also be prohibited between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. daily.

In a separate motion, the Planning Commission previously recommended that the Plan be revised to add a hotel as a permitted use on the south parcel, but the City’s Planning Department staff did not recommend a hotel as a permitted use on the south parcel.