2018–2019. Pasadena chooses a policy direction

Months before the full-length fence went up, Councilmember Steve Madison supported moving forward with the task-force recommendation and asked staff to provide dimensions or a visual of the proposed barrier before the matter reached the full Council, according to the official minutes of the April 18, 2018 Public Safety Committee meeting. Tornek specifically requested a visual showing the scale of the proposed barriers. The task force’s written recommendation set a minimum barrier height of 7 feet 6 inches above the highest foothold, not simply above the walkway. The committee unanimously forwarded the recommendation to the Council.6

On April 23, Public Works presented the task force’s recommendation to the full City Council. Staff reviewed the alternatives the group had considered, including patrols, technology, netting, landscaping, and vertical barriers.7

Councilmember Hampton asked staff to consider temporary fencing at the bridge’s ends and approaches until a fence based on an approved design could be constructed.6

Councilmember Andy Wilson asked whether restricting access at the Colorado Street Bridge would simply push people to another location. Public Health Director Michael Johnson said research on barriers at bridges known for suicide suggested that they can reduce overall deaths rather than simply shift them elsewhere. Councilmember Victor Gordo followed up, asking whether a barrier would reduce suicides across the region or merely shift where they occurred. Johnson said the research showed an overall decline after barriers were installed and referred to a Toronto study.7

The discussion also briefly turned to the bridge’s transportation role. Councilmember Gene Masuda asked whether pedestrians could simply be prohibited. Maloyan said banning pedestrians from the bridge wouldn’t be enough. Preventing access would also require closing the bridge to vehicle traffic, which he called impossible.7

When Councilmember Margaret McAustin asked what the design consultant would actually study, Maloyan said the next phase would focus specifically on vertical barriers. The consultant would develop different versions of a barrier and bring them through review by preservation experts, designers, and the public.7

Tornek predicted that the night’s agreement was probably the highest level of consensus the process would reach.7

At the end of the discussion, Madison moved the staff recommendation, Hampton seconded it, and the Council unanimously adopted the task force’s direction toward a permanent physical deterrent.6 The task force’s recommendation centered on a physical barrier designed to keep people from reaching the edge. Other measures could still play a role, but the barrier became the foundation of the City’s approach.5,6

The Council had agreed on a barrier, but its design was still unsettled. In May 2018, it set aside $400,000 for environmental and design work. Public Works began seeking a consultant that October and interviewed two firms in February 2019.8

The Public Safety Committee considered the proposed contract on April 17, 2019. According to the official minutes, Tornek said the schedule was too slow given the urgency of the issue. Madison warned that rushing projects had led to community and Council opposition before, especially when a historic landmark was involved. He still supported a revised timeline and asked staff to review the proposed budget and look for grants. 8

When the committee returned to the contract on May 15, the official minutes record that Madison moved the revised recommendation, Tornek seconded it, and the committee approved it unanimously. At its May 20 meeting, the full Council approved the contract. Public Works had shortened the design schedule by 10 months and reduced the proposed consultant contract from $700,000 to $500,000. At that point, construction was expected to begin around August 2020, provided the City approved additional construction funding.8

Even with the shorter design schedule, Wilson called it “almost a four or five year project.” Madison had warned against rushing.8 The years that followed were not a rush.