05-2005
GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM OF MINUTES
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
MARCH 11, 2005
The Board of Directors of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (District) met in regular
session in the Board Room, Administration Building, Toll Plaza, San Francisco, California, on Friday, March 11, 2005,
at 10:00 a.m., President Middlebrook presiding.
| ROLL CALL |
| |
Directors Present (18): Directors Ammiano, Brown,
Cochran, Eddie, Hernández, Kerns, Martini, McGoldrick, Murray, Pahre, Reilly,
Sandoval, Shahum, Smith and Stroeh; Second Vice President Boro; First Vice President Harrison; President Middlebrook
Directors Absent (1): Director Dufty
Staff Present: General Manager Celia G. Kupersmith; District Engineer Denis
J. Mulligan; Auditor-Controller Joseph M. Wire; District Secretary Janet S. Tarantino; Attorney David J. Miller; Deputy
General Manager/Bridge Division Kary H. Witt; Deputy General Manager/Bus Division Susan C. Chiaroni; Deputy General
Manager/Ferry Division James P. Swindler; Deputy General Manager/Administration and Development Teri W. Mantony; Public
Affairs Director Mary C. Currie; Executive Assistant to the General Manager Amorette Ko; Assistant Clerk of the Board
Karen B. Engbretson; Captain Michael J. Locati; Lieutenant David Rivera; Lieutenant Dan Brown
Visitors Present: Roger Grimes, suicide
prevention advocate; Mel Blaustein, M.D., Psychiatric Foundation of Northern California; John Kevin Hines, suicide
survivor; Mike and Terry Oxford, Raymond and Mary Zablotny, Jean and David Hull, Maria Martinez, parents of suicide
victims; Eve Meyer, San Francisco Suicide Prevention, Inc.; Patrick Fitzgerald, Sr., and Karen Fitzgerald, suicide
prevention advocates; Terence Faulkner, J.D., San Francisco Republican Committee; Lennart Moller, M.D., Psychiatrist,
Kaiser Hospital; Robert L. Schmidt, G. White and John C. Diamante, suicide barrier opponents; Danielle Hutchings,
Robert Simpson and Douglas Wahl, U.C. Berkeley students; Robert Guernsey, Citizens for a Safe Golden Gate Bridge; Jenni
Olson, Filmmaker |
| |
|
| PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE |
| |
Director Leah C. Shahum led the Board of Directors in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
|
| |
|
| PUBLIC COMMENT |
| |
Public comment was provided under Agenda Item No. 8.A., below. |
| |
|
| CONSENT CALENDAR |
| |
Directors STROEH/EDDIE moved approval of the Consent
Calendar. All items were approved by the following vote of the Board of Directors:
AYES (16): Directors Ammiano, Brown, Cochran,
Eddie, Hernández, Kerns, Martini, Murray, Pahre, Reilly, Shahum, Smith and Stroeh;
Second Vice President Boro; First Vice President Harrison; President Middlebrook
NOES (0): None
ABSENT (3): Directors Dufty, McGoldrick and Sandoval |
| |
|
| 1. |
Approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
Board of Directors of February 25, 2005
Carried |
| |
|
| 2. |
Denial of Claims
1. Claim of Shirley Legant
Carried
2. Claim of Maritza Quintanilla
Carried
3. Claim of Ruth Elizabeth Quintanilla
Carried
4. Claim of Marta Rodriguez
Carried
5. Claim of Jonathan Leon (A Minor)
Carried
6. Subrogation Claim of State Farm Insurance
Companies
(Insured: Kristina Page)
Carried
7. Claim of Suzine K. Young
Carried |
| |
|
| 3. |
Ratify Actions by the Auditor-Controller
Resolution No. 2005-014
(Finance-Auditing Committee, February 24, 2005) ratifies actions taken by the Auditor-Controller, as follows:
a. Ratify commitments and/or expenditures totaling $82,287.66;
b. Ratify investments made by the Auditor-Controller during the period January 18, 2005 through February 14, 2005, as
follows; and,
| Security |
Purchase Date
|
Maturity Date
|
Original Cost
|
Percent Yield
|
| Goldman Sachs Comm. Paper |
01/19/05
|
02/14/05
|
5974539.55
|
2.42
|
| Kitty Hawk Funding Corp Comm Paper |
02/14/05
|
03/21/05
|
5984244.13
|
2.53
|
c. Authorize the Auditor-Controller to re-invest, within the established policy of the Board, investments maturing
between February 15, 2005 and March 14, 2005, and all other funds not required to cover expenditures that may become
available; and,
d. Accept the Investment Report for January 2005 prepared by Public Financial Management.
Adopted |
| |
|
| GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT |
| |
|
| 4. |
Legislative Trip to Washington, D.C.
General Manager Celia Kupersmith reported that during the week of
February 28 to March 4, 2005, a delegation of District staff and Board members traveled to Washington, D.C., to meet
with members of Congress and articulate the District’s need for additional federal
funding for various District projects. She stated that the trip was quite successful, and reported that on March 10,
2005, the House of Representatives passed H.R.3, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, TEA-LU, which
includes significant funding allocations for the Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project. She noted that TEA-LU
includes a one-time allocation of $11 million requested by Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, as well as an allocation of $10
million per year in Bridge Discretionary Funds. |
| |
|
| 5. |
Bay Area Vendor Fair 2005
General Manager Celia Kupersmith highlighted an item in her
written report regarding the first annual Bay Area Vendor Fair. The Vendor Fair, co-hosted by the District in
collaboration with several other Bay Area public agencies and corporations, was held on February 10, 2005, in Oakland,
CA, and provided the District with an opportunity to promote participation of small businesses, including Disadvantaged
Business Enterprises, in District contracts. Ms. Kupersmith stated that the Vendor Fair was a resounding success, with
twice the number of attendees than had been anticipated. She also stated that Director Sabrina Hern
ández participated in the event, for which DBE Programs Administrator Aida Caputo
served as the Chair of the Participants Sub-committee. Director Hernández acknowledged
the exceptional efforts of Deputy General Manager/Administration and Development Teri Mantony
’s staff, in particular Aida Caputo, for representing the District so superbly at the
Bay Area Vendor Fair. |
| |
|
| ATTORNEY’S REPORT |
| |
|
| 6. |
Attorney David Miller reported that all items contained in the Attorney’s Report were
informational. Mr. Miller also reported that a closed session would be held just prior to the conclusion of the meeting
to discuss a matter of anticipated litigation and a matter of pending litigation, as listed on the Agenda.
|
| |
|
| ENGINEER’S REPORT |
| |
|
| 7. |
No written report was presented by District Engineer Denis Mulligan. A written report is
presented to the Board of Directors by the District Engineer at the second Board meeting of the month.
|
| |
|
| REPORT OF THE BUILDING AND OPERATING COMMITTEE/COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 24, 2005 |
| |
|
| 8. |
Approve Proceeding with Environmental Studies and
Preliminary Design Work Related to Development of a Physical Suicide Deterrent System on the Golden Gate Bridge
Celia Kupersmith introduced the recommendation, which was unanimously approved by the
Building and Operating Committee on February 24, 2005. She presented the proposed resolution associated with the
recommendation, and explained the various findings and actions outlined in the resolution. She noted that if the action
is approved, one of the first tasks to undertake would be the establishment of different design and engineering
criteria relative to a physical suicide deterrent system, as well as the generation of financial support from external
public and private sources to finance the project. She also noted that the resolution calls for the formation of a
Bridge Barrier Projects Advisory Committee of the Board, which would be tasked with identifying and pursuing funding
for studies of both a physical suicide deterrent system, as well as a moveable median barrier system.
a. Discussion by Board Members Relative to Development of a Physical Suicide Deterrent
System on the Golden Gate Bridge
Director Martini made the following comments and inquiries:
- He inquired as to whether staff contemplates beginning work on requisite studies for a
physical suicide deterrent system project, while simultaneously seeking funding from outside sources. He further
inquired as to the amount of staff time and financial resources that would be committed through the proposed
resolution. In response, Ms. Kupersmith stated that the first order of business would be policy-related, with no
significant budgetary impacts in the preliminary stages of the project described in the resolution.
- He expressed his opposition to physical suicide deterrent system on the Golden Gate
Bridge, emphasizing that the matter of deterring suicides should be a community mental health issue rather than a
unilateral District project.
Director Smith inquired as to whether the District would have
any legal responsibilities relative to the actions proposed in the resolution, particularly if a suicide occurs after a
physical suicide deterrent system has been installed on the Bridge. In response, Attorney David Miller cited judicially
prescribed standards derived from an interpretation of the California Tort Claims Act that have led to court decisions
that the bridge sidewalks, in their current condition, do not constitute a dangerous condition of public property. This
is based on the premise that individuals who use the bridge sidewalks for the purpose of taking their lives are not
using the sidewalks in a manner used by the general public exercising ordinary care. Mr. Miller advised that there
should be no different outcome if a similar suit were filed following construction of a physical suicide deterrent
system. He concluded that the Resolution presented to the Board at this time fundamentally presents policy issues for
the Board to decide.
Directors Stroeh and Kerns expressed support for the resolution, contingent on the fact that only outside funding
would be used for the project, since the District continues to experience a fiscal crisis.
Director Sandoval inquired regarding the types of physical suicide deterrent systems that
have been installed on other bridges around the world, and whether or not staff would study those designs in seeking a
feasible design for the Golden Gate Bridge. Ms. Kupersmith and Mr. Mulligan both responded, noting that various designs
would be studied as part of the environmental review process and describing how other deterrent designs may or may not
work on the Golden Gate Bridge.
Director Ammiano made the following comments:
- He expressed his support for the resolution, emphasized that public education is
crucial throughout the development process for a physical suicide deterrent system.
- He described a recent trip to Washington, D.C. by a delegation from the San Francisco
Board of Supervisors, which included meetings with Congresswoman Pelosi and Senator Boxer. He stated that there is a
possibility of receiving federal funding for a physical suicide deterrent system. He has also met with Assemblymen Yee
and Leno regarding possible state funding. Ms. Kupersmith added that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission has
also expressed an interest in helping to fund the project.
Director Kerns stated that the media should educate the public to dispel any myths
regarding suicide from the Golden Gate Bridge, and perhaps understanding the terrible realities of death by suicide
could act as a deterrent.
Director Murray made the following comments:
- She stated that she wholeheartedly supports a suicide deterrent system on the Golden
Gate Bridge.
- She urged the public to withhold their judgment of a physical suicide deterrent system
until all alternatives are available for study.
- She expressed confidence that an effective suicide deterrent could be developed that
would not spoil the aesthetics of the Bridge.
Director Boro made the following inquiries and comments:
- He stated that certain suicide deterrent designs, such as those on the Eiffel Tower
and the Empire State Building would not be appropriate for the Golden Gate Bridge.
- He noted that the challenging work will begin once the alternative designs have been
selected.
- He underscored that the District has a responsibility to Bridge users and transit
users, and should keep in mind that its first priority is the safety of the Bridge for its users.
Directors Boro and Shahum expressed their support for the resolution because it
prioritizes studies of a movable median barrier at the same level as a physical suicide deterrent system.
Director Harrison expressed her support for a physical suicide deterrent system, but
cautioned that the District has limited staff resources at this time. She stated the importance of a public-private
partnership to undertake the project.
Director Reilly expressed her support for a physical suicide deterrent system and stated
that she is confident that such a system could save lives.
Director Eddie expressed his support for a physical suicide deterrent system, since the
project would rely on external funding rather than burden the District’s toll payers.
Director McGoldrick stated that District personnel deserves recognition for diverting a
large number of potential suicides. He suggested that the District gather data on the costs of District staff time
expended on the matter of suicides on the Bridge, and that such data could be used in a cost benefit analysis of the
feasibility of a physical suicide deterrent system.
b. Public Comment
The following members of the public expressed their support for a physical suicide
deterrent system on the Golden Gate Bridge:
1. Roger Grimes, advocate for a physical suicide deterrent system on the Bridge;
2. Dr. Mel Blaustein of St. Francis Memorial Hospital;
3. John Kevin Hines, who survived a jump off the Golden Gate Bridge in 2000;
4. Terry and Mike Oxford, parents of suicide victim Jennifer Marie Oxford;
5. Eve Meyer, Executive Director of San Francisco Suicide Prevention, Inc.;
6. Patrick Fitzgerald, Sr., suicide prevention advocate;
7. Terence Faulkner, San Francisco Republican Committee;
8. Maria Martinez, mother of suicide victim Leonard Bernard Branzuela;
9. Mary Zablotny, mother of suicide victim Jonathan Zablotny;
10. Lennart Moller; and,
11. Danielle Hutchings, U.C. Berkeley Student.
The following members of the public expressed their opposition to a
physical suicide deterrent system on the Golden Gate Bridge:
1. Robert Schmidt, San Mateo resident;
2. G. White, San Francisco resident; and,
3. John Diamante, Sausalito resident.
c. Approve Proceeding with Environmental Studies and Preliminary
Design Work Related to Development of a Physical Suicide Deterrent System on the Golden Gate Bridge
Directors EDDIE/HARRISON
Resolution No. 2005-015 approves proceeding with environmental
studies and preliminary design work related to development of a physical suicide deterrent system on the Golden Gate
Bridge subject to various assumptions and conditions, as outlined in the attached resolution.
Adopted
AYES (17): Directors Ammiano, Brown, Cochran,
Eddie, Hernández, Kerns, McGoldrick, Murray, Pahre, Reilly, Sandoval, Shahum, Smith
and Stroeh; Second Vice President Boro; First Vice President Harrison; President Middlebrook
NOES (1): Director Martini
ABSENT (1): Director Dufty
|
| |
|
| REPORT OF THE FINANCE-AUDITING COMMITTEE/COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 24, 2005 |
| |
|
| 9. |
Approve Revisions to the Investment Policy and Amend Rule
XI of the Rules of the Board
Directors STROEH/BROWN
Resolution No. 2005-016 approves revisions to the Investment Policy,
and amends Rule XI, Section I., Permitted Investment Instruments, Subsection 6, of the Rules of the Board, in order to
conform the District’s Investment Policy with Section 53601(g) of the California
Government Code, by replacing Subsection 6 in its entirety with the revised text as outlined below:
“Commercial paper of “prime” quality of the highest ranking or of
the highest letter and number rating, as provided for by a nationally recognized statistical-rating organization
(NRSRO). The entity that issues the commercial paper shall meet all of the following conditions in either paragraph (A)
or paragraph (B):
(A) The entity meets the following criteria: (i) is organized and operating in the
United States as a general corporation. (ii) has total assets in excess of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000).
(iii) has debt other than commercial paper, if any, that is rated "A" or higher
by a nationally recognized statistical-rating organization (NRSRO).
(B) The entity meets the following criteria: (i) is
organized within the United States as a special purpose corporation, trust, or limited liability company; (ii) has
program-wide credit enhancements including, but not limited to, over-collateralization, letters of credit, or surety
bond; (iii) has commercial paper that is rated "A-1" or higher, or the
equivalent, by a nationally recognized statistical-rating organization (NRSRO).”
Eligible commercial paper shall have a maximum maturity of 270 days or less. Local agencies, other than counties or a
city and county, may invest no more than 25 percent of their money in eligible commercial paper. Local agencies, other
than counties or a city and county, may purchase no more than 10 percent of the outstanding commercial paper of any
single issuer. Counties or a city and county may invest in commercial paper pursuant to the concentration limits in
subdivision (a) of Section 53635.
Adopted
AYES (18): Directors Ammiano, Brown, Cochran,
Eddie, Hernández, Kerns, Martini, McGoldrick, Murray, Pahre, Reilly, Sandoval,
Shahum, Smith and Stroeh; Second Vice President Boro; First Vice President Harrison; President Middlebrook
NOES (0): None
ABSENT (1): Director Dufty
|
| |
|
| REPORT OF THE FINANCE-AUDITING COMMITTEE/COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2005 |
| |
|
| 10. |
Approve Renewal of Property Insurance Program for the
Bridge Physical Damage and Use and Occupancy Policy and the District Buildings and Facilities Policy
Directors STROEH/BROWN
Resolution No. 2005-017 approves the following actions relative to
the Property Insurance Program:
a. Renew the Bridge Physical Damage policy with ACE, providing “all risk”
coverage for the Golden Gate Bridge structure, excluding the peril of earthquake, with a limit of $25 million per
occurrence/annual aggregate and a deductible of $15 million per occurrence and Use &
Occupancy policy with ACE, providing “all risk” coverage for loss of toll
revenue to the District from physical damage to the Golden Gate Bridge, including the peril of earthquake, with a limit
of $25 million per occurrence/annual aggregate and a 30-day deductible, at a premium of $1,078,701, for a one-year
term, effective April 8, 2005; and,
b. Renew the District Buildings and Facilities policy with ACE/Westchester, as well as the
incumbent panel of carriers, providing “all risk” coverage for all land-based
District facilities, except the Bridge itself, in case of fire, flood and earthquake, with a limit of $45 million per
occurrence and a deductible of $250,000 each loss for fire, including 5% of value for flood and earthquake, at a
premium of $509,869, for a one-year term, effective April 8, 2004;
with the understanding that requisite funds are available in the
Fiscal Year 2005 Operating Budgets for the Bridge, Bus, Ferry and District divisions and that requisite funds will be
budgeted in the appropriate division operating budgets for Fiscal Year 2006; and, with the further understanding that
renewal of the Boiler and Machinery Policy will be presented to the Board of Directors for its consideration at its
meeting of March 25, 2005.
Adopted
AYES (18): Directors Ammiano, Brown, Cochran, Eddie, Hernández,
Kerns, Martini, McGoldrick, Murray, Pahre, Reilly, Sandoval, Shahum, Smith and Stroeh; Second Vice President Boro;
First Vice President Harrison; President Middlebrook
NOES (0): None
ABSENT (1): Director Dufty
|
| |
|
| REPORT OF THE GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS AND PUBLIC INFORMATION
COMMITTEE/COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 2005 |
| |
|
| 11. |
Approve Actions Relative to Contract No.
2005-D-5, Printing of Golden Gate Transit System Maps, Timetables and Guides:
a. Reject the Bid of Fruitridge Printing &
Lithograph, Inc.; and,
b. Authorize Award of Contract No. 2005-D-5 to Consolidated Printers, Inc.
Directors BORO/MARTINI
Resolution No. 2005-018 approves the following actions relative to
Contract No. 2005-D-5, Printing of Golden Gate Transit System Maps, Timetables and Guides:
a. Reject the apparent low bid of Fruitridge
Printing & Lithograph, Inc., Sacramento, CA, as non-responsive; and,
b. Authorize award of Contract No. 2005-D-5, to Consolidated Printers, Inc., Berkeley, CA, in the amount of $166,423,
including all taxes, fees and charges, for a one-year term, with a one-year option, exercisable by the General Manager
or her designee, subject to an increase in cost not to exceed five percent or $174,555, based upon a corresponding
increase in the Contractor’s costs;
with the understanding that requisite funds are available in the Fiscal Year 2005 Administration and Development
Division Operating Budget.
Adopted
AYES (18): Directors Ammiano, Brown, Cochran,
Eddie, Hernández, Kerns, Martini, McGoldrick, Murray, Pahre, Reilly, Sandoval, Shahum,
Smith and Stroeh; Second Vice President Boro; First Vice President Harrison; President Middlebrook
NOES (0): None
ABSENT (1): Director Dufty |
| |
|
| REPORT OF THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE/COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING
OF MARCH 10, 2005 |
| |
|
| 12. |
Authorize Award of Contract No. 2005-D-6, Revenue
Collection, with Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.
Directors BROWN/SHAHUM
Resolution No. 2005-019 authorizes award of Contract No. 2005-D-6,
Revenue Collection, to Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., Sacramento, CA, in the amount of $101,875, for revenue
collection services, which involves collecting and transporting bus and ferry fare revenue from the Bus and Ferry
Divisions to the District’s Vault Department in a vehicle provided by the District, for
a two-year term, effective May 1, 2005, with a one-year option, exercisable by the General Manager or designee, subject
to a cost adjustment of up to five percent; with the understanding that requisite funds are available in the Fiscal
Year 2005 Bus Division Operating Budget (75%) and in the Fiscal Year 2005 Ferry Division Operating Budget (25%).
Adopted
AYES (18): Directors Ammiano, Brown, Cochran,
Eddie, Hernández, Kerns, Martini, McGoldrick, Murray, Pahre, Reilly, Sandoval, Shahum,
Smith and Stroeh; Second Vice President Boro; First Vice President Harrison; President Middlebrook
NOES (0): None
ABSENT (1): Director Dufty |
| |
|
| REPORT OF THE RULES, POLICY AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
COMMITTEE/COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF MARCH 11, 2005 |
| |
|
| 10. |
Approve Proposed Overall Project Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise Goal for Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project Phase IIIA
Directors HARRISON/KERNS
Resolution No. 2005-020 approves the following actions relative to
the overall project Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal for the Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project
Phase IIIA – North Anchorage Housing/North Pylon:
a. Establish a twelve percent (12%) proposed
goal applicable to $44,440,000 in contracts assisted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and authorize the
General Manager to publish notice of the proposed goal in accordance with federal regulations;
b. Authorize the General Manager to formally adopt the goal if no public comments are received that require further
consideration or modifications of the proposed goal by the Board; and,
c. Authorize staff to submit the overall project DBE goal to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) on
behalf of FHWA.
Adopted
AYES (18): Directors Ammiano, Brown, Cochran,
Eddie, Hernández, Kerns, Martini, McGoldrick, Murray, Pahre, Reilly, Sandoval, Shahum,
Smith and Stroeh; Second Vice President Boro; First Vice President Harrison; President Middlebrook
NOES (0): None
ABSENT (1): Director Dufty |
| |
|
| CLOSED SESSION |
| |
|
| 17. |
Attorney’s Report
Attorney David Miller advised that it would be appropriate to
continue until the March 25, 2005 meeting of the Board of Directors, the following items listed under closed session on
the March 11, 2005 agenda:
a. Conference with Legal Counsel
Annual Litigation Audit Report Prepared by Attorney Covering Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a); and, Anticipated Litigation (Multiple Potential Cases) Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)
b. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation
Government Code Section 54956.9(a)
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District vs. Marsh and McLennan Companies, Inc., et al.
|
| |
|
| ADJOURNMENT |
| |
|
| 19. |
All business having been concluded, the meeting was adjourned at 11:35 a.m. |
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Janet S. Tarantino
Secretary of the District
JST:KBE:kbe
Attachment: (Resolution Relative to the Matter of a Physical Suicide
Deterrent System on the Golden Gate Bridge)
GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-015
APPROVE PROCEEDING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN
WORK RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT OF A PHYSICAL SUICIDE DETERRENT SYSTEM ON THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE
March 11, 2005
THIS RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE FOLLOWING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH
ARE FOUND AND DETERMINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
1. The concept of installing a suicide deterrent system on the Golden
Gate Bridge has been explored at various intervals by District management and the Board of Directors during the past
three decades. For a variety of reasons, however, the development of a physical suicide deterrent system suitable for
installation on the Golden Gate Bridge has not been found to be feasible from various perspectives.
2. California law and judicial precedent establish that the absence of a physical suicide deterrent on the Golden Gate
Bridge does not constitute a dangerous condition of public property within the meaning of Government Code Section 835,
et seq. Notwithstanding that fact, as a result of renewed interest being expressed in revisiting the subject of a
physical suicide deterrent system on the Golden Gate Bridge, on January 27, 2005, a presentation was made by District
staff to the Building and Operating Committee of the Board of Directors regarding the history of District activities
relevant to possible suicide deterrent systems. The report outlined criteria previously used in evaluating possible
physical suicide deterrent systems and presented design alternatives previously considered.
3. On February 24, 2005, staff presented a report that outlined the environmental and design procedures necessary to
undertake development of a physical suicide deterrent system on the Golden Gate Bridge. Specifically, the report
identified the following actions that would have to be undertaken as a part of such consideration:
a. Adoption of criteria for the evaluation of
alternatives for a physical suicide deterrent system, coupled with development of a “Purpose
and Need” statement for the project pursuant to applicable environmental procedures;
b. Review of prior proposals for a physical suicide deterrent system on the Golden Gate Bridge and review of designs
that have been implemented on other bridges;
c. Engagement of consultants to undertake preliminary engineering and environmental work;
d. Solicitation of input from various professional organizations with expertise in mental health regarding the
adequacy of alternatives conceptualized as a potential physical suicide deterrent;
e. Undertaking wind tunnel tests to ensure the feasibility of the proposed design or improvements with respect to the
wind stability of the Golden Gate Bridge;
f. Preparation of a Visual Analysis of the workable alternatives, including preparation of several still photographic
simulations of each alternative;
g. Preparation of an historical “106 Evaluation” in consultation with the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and, if necessary, the Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)
culminating in the preparation of a “Section 4f” report;
h. Solicitation of feedback from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
’s Design Review Board and Engineering Criteria Review Board regarding the alternatives; and
i. Preparation of environmental documents pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and National
Environmental Policy Act.
The District Engineer estimated that the cost to complete these various milestones to be $2 million.
4. Notwithstanding the absence of any legal obligation to construct a physical suicide deterrent system on the Golden
Gate Bridge, the Building and Operating Committee, following receipt of extensive public testimony and deliberations on
the aforementioned report presented by staff, unanimously voted to recommend that the Board of Directors approve
proceeding with environmental studies and preliminary design work for development of a physical suicide deterrent
system on the Golden Gate Bridge with the understanding that a new set of assumptions and conditions are to be
established to govern project development, including (a) the establishment of different design and engineering criteria
calling for a physical suicide deterrent system to serve as a deterrent to suicides, recognizing the difficulty, if not
impossibility, to devise any practical system that would make it physically impossible in all circumstances for
suicides to occur; and, (b) the generation of financial support from external public and private sources to finance the
project with the understanding that much of this work cannot begin until funds have been identified and appropriated;
and, (c) with the further understanding that these initial actions are being authorized to enable the Board of
Directors to ultimately determine whether to proceed with construction of a physical suicide deterrent system.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Golden Gate
Bridge, Highway and Transportation District as follows:
1. The Board of Directors hereby approves proceeding with environmental studies and preliminary design work for
development of a physical suicide deterrent system on the Golden Gate Bridge with the understanding that a new set of
assumptions and conditions are to be established to govern project development, including (a) the establishment of
different design and engineering criteria calling for a physical suicide deterrent system to serve as a deterrent to
suicides, recognizing the difficulty, if not impossibility, to devise any practical system that would make it
physically impossible in all circumstances for suicides to occur; and, (b) the generation of financial support from
external public and private sources to finance the project with the understanding that much of this work cannot begin
until funds have been identified and appropriated; and, (c) with the further understanding that these initial actions
are being authorized to enable the Board of Directors to ultimately determine whether to proceed with construction of a
physical suicide deterrent system.
2. Staff is directed to begin the project by developing proposed criteria for evaluation of alternatives for a
physical suicide deterrent system for consideration and ultimate adoption by the Board of Directors.
3. Staff is directed to investigate and report on funding opportunities for the project from sources, including
federal, state, regional and local governmental agencies, as well as from various private sector sources.
4. Staff is directed that with regard to aerodynamic studies required to evaluate the feasibility of installing a
physical suicide deterrent system on the Golden Gate Bridge, such studies are to analyze the physical suicide deterrent
both with and without the installation of a moveable median barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge as to which the Board of
Directors enacted legislation granting conceptual approval pursuant to resolution No. 98-116 on May 22, 1998.
5. The Board of Directors authorize the President of the Board to constitute a Bridge Barrier Projects Advisory
Committee of the Board for purposes of working with staff and outside interested parties to identify and pursue funding
for implementation of the studies associated with the Physical Suicide Deterrent System and the Movable Median Barrier
System projects. Said Advisory Committee is to report on its activities to the standing Finance-Auditing Committee of
the Board.
ADOPTED this 11th day of March, 2005, by the following vote of the Board:
AYES (17): Directors Ammiano, Brown, Cochran, Eddie, Hernández, Kerns,
McGoldrick, Murray, Pahre, Reilly, Sandoval, Shahum, Smith and Stroeh; Second Vice President Boro; First Vice President
Harrison; President Middlebrook
NOES (1): Director Martini
ABSENT (1): Director Dufty
________________________________
Maureen Middlebrook
President of the Board of Directors
ATTEST: ___________________________
Janet S. Tarantino
Secretary of the District
|