Presenting the task-force alternatives review

Discussion summary

Maloyan presented the task-force recommendations following its comparison of physical barriers, netting, planting, patrols, technology, and self-help measures.

Its recommendation centered on restricting access at the bridge edge while allowing complementary measures.

Explaining the limits on planting below the bridge

Discussion summary

The Public Works presentation identified roughly 20 percent of the span where trees could not be planted.

The written recommendation treated planting as a possible supplement to a vertical barrier.

Asking whether pedestrian access could be prohibited

Discussion summary

Masuda asked whether pedestrians could simply be prohibited from the bridge.

Maloyan answered that a pedestrian ban would not prevent access without closing the bridge to vehicle traffic as well, which he called impossible.

Asking what the consultant would actually study

Discussion summary

McAustin asked what work the design consultant would undertake, then asked at 01:22:55 whether a range of options would be developed.

Maloyan answered at 01:20:58 that the next phase concerned vertical barriers and at 01:23:11 that different designs would return for community review.

Explaining what the next consultant would design

Discussion summary

In response to McAustin, Maloyan said the next phase would develop vertical-barrier options.

At 01:23:11 he explained that several options would return to the community for review.

Asking whether deaths would move elsewhere

Discussion summary

Wilson asked whether restricting access at this bridge would simply move the problem to another location.

Mermell joined the discussion at 01:25:58. Wilson called on Public Health at 01:26:46, and Michael Johnson began answering at 01:27:14.

Would deaths fall overall or move elsewhere?

Discussion summary

Johnson described research suggesting that barriers at bridges known for suicide could reduce broader deaths rather than merely shift them elsewhere.

Johnson answered the follow-up at 01:31:51 and referred to Toronto research at 01:32:15.

Would deaths fall across the region or move elsewhere?

Discussion summary

Gordo asked whether a bridge barrier would reduce deaths across the region or simply change where they occurred. He then asked about the supporting study.

Johnson said the research showed an overall decline after barriers were installed and referred to a Toronto study.

Anticipating a harder design debate

Working-transcript excerpt

“This is probably the highest level of consensus we’ll achieve in this process, I predict.”

Tornek predicted that agreement would become more difficult once specific designs were presented.

Moving the permanent-barrier recommendation

Discussion summary

Madison moved approval of the task-force recommendation. Hampton seconded it, and the Council approved it unanimously.

The adopted direction centered on a permanent physical barrier. The detailed design still had to be developed.

Supporting the barrier direction and interim fencing

Discussion summary

The official minutes record Hampton’s request to consider temporary fencing at the bridge’s ends and approaches until an approved design could be built. He also seconded the staff recommendation.

The Council unanimously approved the recommendation moved by Madison.

Describing the preservation and safety tradeoff

Written-record summary

In a 2018 interview, Mossman discussed the difficulty of protecting people while respecting the bridge’s historic design.

Written source. Open the supporting records below.

Later The 2021 committee minutes later record her appreciation for the staff and design team, the lack of task-force consensus on the designs, and her call for further exploration.

Asking for a shorter consultant schedule

Written-record summary

The April 2019 minutes record Tornek’s concern that the proposed schedule was too slow given the urgency of the issue.

Written source. Open the supporting records below.

Madison cautioned about rushing a historic-landmark project but supported a revised schedule, budget review, and grant search.

Calling attention to the length of the project

Quotation

“almost a four or five year project”

Wilson called attention to the project’s length, even after staff shortened the proposed design schedule.

Staff reported a ten-month shorter design period and a contract reduction from $700,000 to $500,000. Construction was expected around August 2020, provided the City approved additional construction funding.

Requesting a fuller enclosure comparison

Written-record summary

The February 2020 minutes record Kennedy’s request for cost information on an enclosure option.

Written source. Open the supporting records below.

Staff and the design consultant were asked to return with a fuller comparison.

Later The August 2021 presentation included a refined enclosure concept and a design-goal comparison.

Requesting discussion and direction on the designs

Quotation

“get it right”

Mermell opened the item by seeking committee discussion and direction on the permanent designs.

Explaining a pandemic procurement and fabrication delay

Discussion summary

Markarian described delays obtaining materials and fabricating the mockups during the pandemic.

Comparing the refined enclosure against design goals

Discussion summary

Line compared the developed concepts, including a refined enclosure, against the project’s design goals.

The presentation compared safety, appearance, and the relationship to the historic bridge.

Explaining why interrupting access can matter

Caption excerpt

“really disruptive action is required to be able to prevent the suicide”

Madison discussed Malcolm Gladwell’s account of coupling between a place and a method and explained why disrupting that relationship mattered to the bridge.

Madison treated prevention as an important goal while also saying the permanent design was not ready for a decision.

Narrow to two choices, then seek more input

Caption excerpt

“what we should try to do is get down to two choices”

Madison said the City had either not found the right solution or had not had enough process to identify it. He proposed narrowing the alternatives before returning to the community.

Gordo later said he was not ready even to narrow the process and asked for more options.

Narrowing the options and seeking local expertise

Quotation

“one last time out”

Kennedy supported narrowing the options and placing the project on a timetable. He also supported another opportunity for local expertise to contribute to the two-option approach Madison had discussed.

The temporary fence and the bridge’s reputation

Quotation

“the decoupling, if you will, has started”

Gordo picked up Madison’s discussion of place and method. He said the temporary structure appeared to be discouraging people from using the bridge to harm themselves.

He also said the work remained incomplete.

More options and another round of public input

Caption excerpt

“we ought to send this back for more community input”

Gordo said he was not ready to narrow the permanent designs. He discussed different materials and further consideration of the enclosure concept.

Further consideration in 2021

Quotation

“get this right”

Hampton said the temporary structure was working and continued considering alternatives for a permanent approach. His proposal for around-the-clock staffing followed at 01:26:44.

Hampton praised staff’s work, supported further consideration, and asked whether an enclosure could take a form more compatible with the historic bridge.

Asking whether the bridge could be staffed around the clock

Caption excerpt

“Has that ever even come up?”

Hampton asked whether staffing the bridge for 24 hours had been considered and what two-person coverage would cost.

Mermell said staffing had been suggested before, gave a rough annual cost in the hundreds of thousands, and questioned its feasibility. He favored retaining the temporary fence until another solution was ready.

Responding to the proposal for around-the-clock staffing

Discussion summary

Mermell said staffing had been suggested before, would likely cost several hundred thousand dollars annually, and was not feasible as a replacement for physical protection.

The discussion continued with Gordo’s Host/Guide-style idea and questions about how staff could intervene.

A host or guide model for the bridge

Caption excerpt

“I don’t think we should dismiss outright the concept of achieving our goal of suicide prevention by manning the bridge”

Gordo drew on the Old Pasadena host or guide program and suggested personnel who could observe, report, and offer historical information.

Madison discussed visibility, the size of the bridge, incident timing, and whether personnel should physically intervene.

The practical limits of intervention by personnel

Caption excerpt

“the efficacy of it is really hard to to predict”

Madison said he had discussed staffing with residents and staff. He questioned whether personnel would be in the right place and able to act when needed.

Madison identified the bridge’s length, curvature, two sides, and varied incident timing. The discussion also raised the limits of physical intervention and liability.

Later The same practical issue returned when Madison described rapidly unfolding incidents in November 2023.

Staffing, liability, and further review

Quotation

“get it right”

Kennedy’s preceding discussion, beginning at 01:39:01, raised liability and intervention concerns about staffing. He acknowledged the effort to save lives while questioning how personnel could safely intervene.

Explaining why a three-month return was too aggressive

Caption excerpt

“I do think three months is probably too aggressive.”

In his closing summary, Mermell described the further work needed before the project could return to the committee.

He connected the return schedule to the work now being requested. The temporary fence would remain during that process.

Clarifying a combined physical and staffing approach

Caption excerpt

“maybe it’s a hybrid”

Gordo clarified that his interest in staffing could involve combining it with a physical design and the more transparent material shown that evening.

Mermell’s closing summary called for consultation with the design team and a further timetable. He said a three-month return was probably too aggressive.

Safety and the bridge’s appearance

Quotation

“elevate human safety over aesthetics and objects”

Madison said the proposed designs would change the bridge’s appearance. He also said that a solution achieving both safety and preservation goals would be more successful.

Staff described rescue, maintenance, and preservation concerns associated with horizontal netting. The later exchange addressed landscaping and the bridge’s geometry.

Returning to trees and shrubs below the bridge

Caption excerpt

“have we looked at even solutions as simple as, you know, thick trees and shrubs and bushes that would then break a fall?”

Madison asked about landscaping as a cushioning or deterrent measure while exploring a combination of approaches.

Markarian said the task force had examined landscaping and researched measures elsewhere. Staff and the consultant discussed the local geometry, remaining fall distance, structural demands, and appearance of netting.

Declining to support the three proposed designs

Caption excerpt

“I don’t think I could support any of these options”

After the discussion of netting and landscaping, Madison said a substantial change in community sentiment would be needed for him to support one of the designs. He had suggested the temporary fence might be preferable.

Olmos proposed completing commission review, presenting survey results, and returning with additional information about netting and other questions.

Asking what other options had been considered

Caption excerpt

“Are there any other options that the working group looked into that you could share with us?”

Jones relayed residents’ concerns about both the existing fence and the proposed permanent designs and asked about other options.

Olmos explained that developing barrier designs was staff’s direction and that the other options had already gone through extensive discussion. Staff could study alternatives again if directed.

Explaining why staffing had not been recommended as a replacement

Discussion summary

Markarian said the task force had considered staffing and described the problem of continuous coverage, the bridge’s curve, multiple personnel, liability, and incidents outside ordinary hours.

Gordo asked for a closer look at trained security at night and Park Safety specialists, docents, or volunteers during the day.

Later The committee requested more staffing analysis. Staff presented annual cost estimates in July 2024.

Revisiting a staffing model

Quotation

“money well spent”

Speaker and passage checked against the recording.

Gordo suggested that people affected by suicidal crises might view a staffing expense of “a couple hundred thousand dollars” this way. He asked staff to revisit the model and return with recommendations.

The later discussion separated immediate response from a possible deterrent effect of human presence.

Could stationed personnel respond in time?

Quotation

“unfold in five minutes”

Speaker and passage checked against the recording.

Madison used this phrase while questioning whether personnel stationed along the bridge could reach an incident quickly enough. He had also discussed how capital funds might support an ongoing staffing expense.

Gordo acknowledged the response-time concern but asked whether the presence of personnel could deter an impulsive attempt. Olmos described patrol as a complementary measure.

Requesting expert advice on the deterrent effect of human presence

Caption excerpt

“I would ask that staff talk with professionals, psychologists and psychiatrists to see if in fact that might make a difference”

Gordo distinguished an immediate response from the possibility that a visible human presence might prevent an impulsive attempt from beginning. He asked for professional advice.

Olmos said patrol and technology could enhance a barrier and asked whether to continue the design process or pause.

Asking whether staff should continue or pause

Discussion summary

Olmos asked whether staff should continue through the scheduled commission reviews and survey or pause the process.

Jones recommended continuing to the commissions and hearing the survey results at 00:55:35.

Continuing commission review and the survey

Caption excerpt

“continue to go to the commissions and then get the results of the survey”

Caption wording. Speaker and passage checked against the recording.

After Olmos asked whether staff should continue or pause, Jones recommended proceeding with commission review and hearing the survey results.

Olmos’s closing proposal also included responses to the committee’s questions and health expertise.

Public Health’s role and whether deaths would move elsewhere

Discussion summary

Jones asked how Public Health had participated and whether blocking access at one bridge could shift attempts to another place. He also raised a broader citywide prevention approach.

Olmos relayed the mental-health specialist’s explanation that interrupting access to a selected bridge would not simply send everyone to the next bridge. Staff agreed to bring health professionals when the project returned.

Agreeing to bring Public Health into the next review

Discussion summary

Olmos responded to questions about Public Health involvement and whether protection at one location moves deaths elsewhere.

Staff agreed to include health professionals when the project returned.

Later A suicide prevention specialist participated in the July 2024 presentation.

Confirming that a barrier creates time for intervention

Quotation

“Yes, it buys time”

Checked against the recording.

Markarian agreed that a barrier buys time during an incident.

She added that it gives notified first responders time to arrive.

Asking for Public Health at the next discussion

Caption excerpt

“public health needs to be involved in this discussion”

Madison called for health expertise after Olmos and Markarian explained that a barrier can buy time for a crisis to ease or responders to arrive.

Staff said they had consulted people in the field and proposed bringing health professionals with the survey results and follow-up information.

Later The July 2024 meeting included Sandri Kramer of Didi Hirsch, who explained means restriction and the importance of time for intervention.

Setting out the work for the next return

Discussion summary

Olmos proposed continuing the planned meetings and returning with survey results, responses to the committee’s questions, and Public Health and other expert input.

Asking about horizontal and landscape alternatives

Discussion summary

Delgado acknowledged the staff work and asked whether the team had considered horizontal protection or landscaping. She compared the discussion with the Golden Gate Bridge.

An off-camera respondent at 00:42:33 described the earlier alternatives review and the Council’s vertical-barrier direction. The speaker’s name and role remain unidentified.

Questioning the earlier Council direction

Discussion summary

Delgado referred to the “previous City Council” while questioning the restriction of the current design work to vertical barriers.

The exchange returned to whether earlier direction should constrain the options now under review. The off-camera respondent’s name and role are not established.

Suggesting cacti and relaying a housing suggestion

Working-transcript excerpt

“It could be cacti below it.”

Delgado suggested cacti below the bridge and relayed a public suggestion for an apartment building below it.

A respondent discussed existing bungalows at 00:47:29. The later response, around 00:47:50, returned to the safety reason for keeping people on the bridge deck. The respondent remains unidentified.

Objecting to all three presented designs

Caption excerpt

“I’m having a problem too with all three of these solutions”

Delgado discussed the proposed designs’ materials, appearance, and relationship to the bridge.

Identifying unfinished engineering questions about netting

Discussion summary

Markarian explained that structural connections had not been designed and that further studies were needed to determine whether modifications to the bridge would be required.

Explaining the rescue concerns with horizontal netting

Discussion summary

Augustin discussed the safety of the person in crisis and responding crews, access to a net, the use of two ladder trucks, extended operations, and training requirements.

At approximately 00:35:48, he said he could not recommend horizontal netting from a public-safety standpoint.

Explaining the need for public education about prevention

Quotation

“public education issue”

Kramer described a public education issue in understanding suicide prevention and the role of barriers in creating time for intervention.

Her discussion placed intervention time and the impact on responders alongside the project’s engineering and design questions.

Reporting the expert recommendation against a local net

Discussion summary

Markarian reported a unanimous expert-review recommendation against horizontal netting as a viable measure at this bridge.

Asking for a faster return

Working-transcript excerpt

“I think that time is of the essence.”

Hampton asked for direction and a return to the committee in roughly 90 days rather than early the following year.

Naming vertical mesh as a preferred design

Caption excerpt

“I think the vertical mesh is the most ideal”

Hampton identified vertical mesh as his preference and discussed its appearance and the bridge’s public identity.

He also asked staff to return sooner and suggested cameras and motion detectors.

Cameras and motion detection as added protection

Caption excerpt

“we need to put cameras up on the bridge with motion detectors”

Hampton proposed camera and sensor alerts to Police as an addition to the vertical mesh he had just preferred.

The meeting’s later staff response treated technology as a potential complement to physical protection and raised operational concerns.

Human life and safety

Working-transcript excerpt

“we have to elevate human life and human safety over really objects of any kind”

Madison expressed sympathy to a family and recalled why the emergency fence had been installed. He remained uncertain that the proposed permanent designs had sufficiently changed.

Madison also acknowledged public-safety concerns about netting while asking whether the City had exhausted alternatives.

Have all the options been exhausted?

Quotation

“Do you feel like we’ve really done our level best to exhaust all the feasible options?”

Checked against the recording.

At 01:06:24, Madison said leadership sometimes requires proceeding without a great option. At 01:06:35, he asked Markarian whether the City had exhausted the feasible options. The broader discussion included ground cover, combined measures, and consultation with Caltech.

Beginning at 01:06:45, Markarian described more than seven years on the project and experts with different perspectives. She said, “we have truly exhausted various mitigation measures,” then discussed the Golden Gate comparison. In the later ground-cover exchange, she explained why the fall distance limited measures at ground level.

Responding when below-bridge alternatives returned

Quotation

“we have truly exhausted various mitigation measures”

Checked against the recording.

Madison asked at 01:06:35 whether the City had exhausted all the feasible options. Markarian’s answer began at 01:06:45. She described more than seven years on the project and experts from different backgrounds and perspectives, then discussed the Golden Gate comparison.

Her answer emphasized the work already performed. The continuing discussion still included questions about particular below-bridge arrangements.

Clarifying which design raised Fire’s rescue concerns

Discussion summary

Gordo asked whether Fire’s concern about risks to people and responders applied to vertical mesh.

Fire clarified that the concern was about horizontal netting and explicitly supported a vertical barrier. Gordo acknowledged the clarification.

Clarifying support for a vertical barrier

Caption excerpt

“we absolutely are in support of a barrier”

Augustin clarified that Fire’s concern was with horizontal netting and that the department supported a vertical barrier.

Asking about layered netting and its effectiveness

Caption excerpt

“I think my question was more about the efficacy and whether it was considered”

Madison proposed more than one layer of netting with ground cover. After hearing about cost and engineering complexity, he said his question concerned effectiveness and whether the idea had been considered.

Markarian described the added structural reach. The architect described cost, appearance, and engineering complexity and said the concept was not impossible.

Requesting a closer look at remote intervention

Caption excerpt

“I’d ask the experts to look at that technology”

Gordo described monitored cameras with speakers that could allow a trained person to engage someone on the bridge in real time.

In the following exchange with Jones, Markarian described such measures as complements, discussed operational limits, and questioned their effectiveness alone.

Patrol: cost, effectiveness, or both?

Discussion summary

Jones asked whether staff’s recommendation against continuous patrol was based on its cost or its effectiveness.

Markarian said both cost and effectiveness were concerns, along with liability and training. She distinguished measures that might help from a replacement for physical protection.

Was any expert recommending horizontal netting?

Discussion summary

Jones asked whether any expert or task-force participant was recommending horizontal netting.

Markarian answered that horizontal netting was unanimously not recommended.

Pursuing one of the two remaining designs

Quotation

“I would be in favor of moving forward with pursuing one of these two options and being able to develop a plan and come back to us.”

Checked against the recording.

Jones had asked whether patrol was ruled out because of cost, effectiveness, or both, and whether any expert had recommended horizontal netting. Staff answered both on patrol and said the recommendation against netting was unanimous.

He proposed using the feedback to refine components and variations and return with a plan.

Returning to netting and continuous patrol

Caption excerpt

“I still think that those are factors that we should put out”

Hampton said he had raised horizontal netting and continuous patrol at the previous meeting and still wanted them considered, while acknowledging cost.

Hampton moved on to ask Fire about rescue cushions and whether a higher-capacity version existed.

Describing the rescue cushion’s operational limits

Discussion summary

Augustin described a roughly 100-foot cushion rating, bridge portions reaching roughly 150 feet, and constraints on positioning equipment below the bridge.

Hampton then asked whether higher-capacity equipment existed. Fire did not know and agreed to investigate.

Later The May 2026 Fire equipment list names a cushion but supplies no rating.

A higher-capacity rescue cushion: a new unanswered question

Discussion summary

After Fire described the limits of its rescue cushion, Hampton asked whether equipment rated for a greater height existed.

Fire did not know whether a higher-capacity cushion was available and agreed to investigate.

Later A May 2026 presentation listed a rescue cushion without a capacity rating, so it did not resolve the question.

Keeping horizontal netting in consideration

Working-transcript excerpt

“the horizontal wouldn’t be an idea I’d tell you to completely cancel out”

Later in the same meeting, Hampton continued to favor considering horizontal netting after staff’s recommendation against it and Fire’s explanation of rescue concerns. He described it as the most attractive-looking option.

He also said the project needed to move forward. The higher-capacity rescue-cushion question remained unanswered.

Considering other uses for unspent Bridge money

Discussion summary

Hawkesworth raised the possibility of redirecting unspent Bridge money to other priorities. He also said the City had made a shortlist for a possible $4.5 million federal earmark in the next budget cycle.

Public Works Director Greg de Vinck responded that redirecting the remaining money would leave the City without the matching funds needed for the shortlisted application.

Explaining why the remaining money mattered to a funding application

Discussion summary

de Vinck described a shortlisted grant application and said redirecting the Bridge money would leave Pasadena without the required matching funds.

The April available-balance sheet associates project 73324 with $1,336,791 and a note about retaining funds for a match and final design. The sheet gives no program name, matching amount, or calculation of the balance.

Asking what had been spent and what the remaining money would finish

Discussion summary

Cole asked how much Pasadena had already spent and whether the remaining money would pay for a completed barrier.

City Engineer Brent Maue said the remaining money was expected to finish design. Staff described about $1.5 million spent, about $1.3 million remaining for design, and a separate construction estimate of roughly $4 million.

Distinguishing the cost of finishing design from building the barrier

Discussion summary

Maue said the remaining balance was expected to finish design. He then gave a construction estimate of roughly $4 million at 02:00:54 and discussed the $4.5 million shortlist at 02:01:11.

April’s federal program remains unidentified. Its relationship to Rep. Chu’s published $4 million request is unresolved.