Latest Guides

Community News

Commissioners Expect ‘Temporary’ Bridge Across Arroyo Flood Control Channel Will Actually End Up Becoming Permanent

Published on Wednesday, June 29, 2022 | 5:46 am
 

Design Commissioners and public commenters offered no serious aesthetic concerns about a proposed temporary footbridge across the Arroyo Seco flood control channel within the Brookside Golf Course, northwest of the Rose Bowl stadium, but said they doubted it will remain just ‘temporary.’

“As to the temporary nature of it, I doubt that it’s going to end up temporary. This is permanent and there probably would have to be a CEQA review and a bunch of other reviews that no doubt everybody wants to avoid at this point.” Nina Chomsky who spoke on behalf of Linda Vista-Annandale Association said.

The proposed 24 feet wide and 80 feet long bridge would be constructed out of bronze metal frame with brown wood in-laid. It was requested by live entertainment event company Goldenvoice/AEG to facilitate crowd movement during live events outside the Rose Bowl for use when audiences want to walk from one stage to another.

“We would like to have a performance stage on both sides of the Arroyo,”applicant Goldenvoice/AEG representative Perry Tollett said at the meeting. “Typically when one band ends, there’s a mass migration of people… Because of that large population of pedestrians, it tends to clog up bridges that were intended for golf carts.”

“We thought we would bring a wider bridge and it will facilitate the traffic and make a safer environment.”

According to the staff report, the bridge would be constructed off site and will be composed of three sections. Once completed, it would be transported to the golf course and assembled onsite and stored offsite.

The use of the bridge would coincide with concert schedules at Brookside Golf Course from May to September. It will be assembled late April and would be removed by early October.

If a new permanent bridge were proposed it would require action by the City Council and will be subject to CEQA and other analyses. Because the bridge actually proposed would only be used temporarily, it is not be subject to additional review.

The majority of the commissioners expressed concerns about the ‘temporary’ character of the structure.

“This is a concern — this issue of temporary versus permanent. An 80 foot structural steel span is not easy to remove. It’s not easy to store, it’s not easy to put back in place. It would be very expensive. There would be cranes involved, there would be a lot of effort involved and then you got an issue of where to store it,” Commissioner Carpenter said.

Like Chomsky, Carpenter said he believes the bridge would end up remaining at the site for practical reasons.

“I’m just a bit surprised because the City, apparently in the negotiation with AEG, did not come up with a stronger position on this issue,” Commissioner Philip Chiao remarked.

Chiao also pointed out that it’s going to be extremely expensive to assemble and reassemble the bridge every year. “It does not make any sense,” he further remarked.

Lights will be installed at the site. A gate is also planned to be constructed at the end of the bridge.

No vital design concerns were brought up except for Commissioner Robert Carpenter’s concerns regarding lacking details on the design of the decorative light fixtures that will be installed on the bridge and the design of the gate, which were not seen in the staff report.

As per staff report, the Design Commission’s recommendations will be incorporated into the final project design prior to plan check and permit issuance.

Get our daily Pasadena newspaper in your email box. Free.

Get all the latest Pasadena news, more than 10 fresh stories daily, 7 days a week at 7 a.m.

Make a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One thought on “Commissioners Expect ‘Temporary’ Bridge Across Arroyo Flood Control Channel Will Actually End Up Becoming Permanent

  • Wow, this “bridge controversy” is really kind of stupid. This crossing the Arroyo issue has been a problem for years, even at regular Rose Bowl events. Is Pasadena’s staff just too lazy to go through the trouble of installing a proper permanent bridge, or are staff just too incompetent thsese days, to be able to successfully complete the necessary environmental steps to install a permanent bridge at this location, which would likely have no significant environmental issues and significant benefits for improved safe public access?