Meetings

February 24, 2005
(For Board: March 11, 2005)

REPORT OF THE BUILDING AND OPERATING COMMITTEE/
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Honorable Board of Directors
Golden Gate Bridge, Highway
and Transportation District

Honorable Members:

A meeting of the Building and Operating Committee/Committee of the Whole was held in the Board Room, Administration Building, Toll Plaza, San Francisco, California, on Thursday, February 24, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., Chair Eddie presiding.

Committee Members Present (8): Chair Eddie; Vice Chair Reilly; Directors Ammiano, Boro Martini, Smith and Stroeh; President Middlebrook (Ex Officio)
Committee Members Absent (1): Directors Hernández
Other Directors Present (8): Directors Brown, Cochran, Dufty, Harrison, McGoldrick, Murray, Pahre and Shahum

Committee of the Whole Members Present (16): Directors Ammiano, Brown, Cochran, Dufty, Eddie, Martini, McGoldrick, Murray, Pahre, Reilly, Shahum, Smith and Stroeh; Second Vice President Boro; First Vice President Harrison; President Middlebrook
Committee of the Whole Members Absent (3): Directors Hernández, Kerns and Sandoval

Staff Present: General Manager Celia G. Kupersmith; District Engineer Denis J. Mulligan; Auditor-Controller Joseph M. Wire; Secretary of the District 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 & Development Teri W. Mantony; Public Information Director Mary C. Currie; Assistant to the General Manager Amorette Ko; Assistant Clerk of the Board Karen B. Engbretson; Assistant Clerk of the Board Trainee Patsy Whala

Visitors Present: John Kevin Hines, suicide survivor; Patrick Hines, father of John Kevin Hines; Mel Blaustein, M.D., Psychiatric Foundation of Northern California; Martha Stookey and Joan Quan, International High School; Mary Zablotny, Sarah Cherny, Robert Cherny, Renee Milligan and Dave Hull, relatives of suicide victims; Roger Grimes, Joyce Pavlovsky and Karen Fitzgerald, suicide prevention advocates; Eve Meyer and John Vidaurri, San Francisco Suicide Prevention, Inc., Robert Guernsey, Citizens for a Safe Golden Gate Bridge; Anne Fleming, M.D., psychiatrist at San Francisco General Hospital; Mike and Terry Oxford, San Jose residents; Bruce Gurganus, County of Marin Mental Health Director

1.

Discussion Relative to Process for Development of a Physical Suicide Deterrent System on the Golden Gate Bridge

In a memorandum to Committee, District Engineer Denis Mulligan and General Manager Celia Kupersmith provided an informational report outlining the procedures necessary to undertake development of a physical suicide deterrent system on the Golden Gate Bridge. The report stated that development of such a system would require extensive engineering analysis and environmental review, a process estimated to take up to two years and cost as much as $2 million to complete. This $2 million cost would not include the cost of developing final plans and specifications. The development process would also be subject to state and federal involvement due to the desire to have the project eligible for federal funding. Final design and construction would occur following the initial two-year engineering and environmental review process.

The report provided an overview of the process required to be undertaken prior to construction of any physical suicide deterrent system, including development of an array of reasonable alternatives and completion of the environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The process would include the following steps to be completed:

Following Board approval to proceed with the project, the Board would need to adopt a list of criteria for the evaluation of alternatives for a physical suicide deterrent system;
Concurrently develop a “Purpose and Need” statement and obtain Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) concurrence with the statement, pursuant to CEQA/NEPA;
Review prior proposals for a physical suicide deterrent system on the Golden Gate Bridge, as well as designs that have been implemented on other bridges;
Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to engage consultants to undertake the preliminary engineering and environmental work on the project;
Solicit feedback from the Psychiatric Foundation of Northern California and suicide prevention organizations in San Francisco, Marin and Sonoma counties specifically regarding the adequacy of the alternatives as a potential physical suicide deterrent;
Undertake wind tunnel tests and analysis of the alternatives to ensure the feasibility of the design, both with and without the installation of a moveable median barrier on the Bridge structure;
Perform a Visual Analysis of the workable alternatives, including preparation of several still photographic simulations from various perspectives;
Prepare an historic “106 Evaluation” in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO); and, if necessary, the Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP); and, prepare a “Section 4(f)” Report;
Solicit feedback from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission’ s (BCDC) Design Review Board and Engineering Criteria Review Board regarding the alternatives;
Incorporate the above-noted analysis, evaluations and reports into a Draft Environmental Assessment/Initial Study for FHWA approval and subsequent public release;
Hold a public hearing to provide for full public disclosure and comment;
Following public review of the workable alternatives, prepare responses to public comments, incorporating changes as appropriate;
Simultaneously, the District would execute Memorandum of Agreement with SHPO, FHWA, and GGNRA, and obtain FHWA Section 4(f) approval; and,
Nearing the end of the process, staff will finalize the environmental document pursuant to CEQA and NEPA.

The report noted that the ultimate cost to construct the proposed physical suicide deterrent system on the Golden Gate Bridge would be a function of the alternative selected for implementation. Once that alternative is selected and the funding secured for the cost of the final design, staff would prepare final plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) and obtain necessary regulatory permits. The report noted that if the Board chose to move forward with final design before the environmental document is adopted, any design work undertaken before the environmental document adoption would not be eligible for federal funding and could not qualify as matching funds for any federal funding of the construction phase of the project. A copy of the report is available in the Office of the District Secretary.

At the meeting, Denis Mulligan summarized the staff report, noting that the projected two-year timeframe for the engineering analysis and environmental review would be an ambitious schedule, considering the amount of regulatory steps prescribed by state and federal law. He described those regulatory steps in detail, noting that since the Golden Gate Bridge is an historic structure, the historic preservation review process would likely be the longest duration activity within the proposed workplan. He further noted that the review process would also include input from key project stakeholders, such as the Psychiatric Foundation of Northern California and various suicide prevention organizations.

Mr. Mulligan also stated that the Board of Directors would be provided project updates and opportunities for decisions at key milestones, including an initial adoption of evaluation criteria, review of the array of alternatives and selection of the preferred alternative. In addition, the Board could choose to expand the level of public involvement in the review process above and beyond that set by state and federal law, understanding that increasing public involvement might add additional time to the schedule. He further described the technical details associated with wind tunnel studies, since any structural change to the aerodynamic form of a long span suspension bridge would affect its stability under high winds. In conclusion, Mr. Mulligan noted that since a physical suicide deterrent project is currently not included in the District’s capital budget, the District would need to obtain $2 million of new monies from some new source, or the District could defer a currently budgeted capital maintenance project or the District could implement a $2 million reduction in services in its operating budget.

Celia Kupersmith stated that in 1998, the Board authorized conceptual approval for the installation of a one-foot wide moveable median barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge. Therefore, if wind tunnel testing were undertaken, it would be prudent to include evaluations of the physical suicide deterrent system both with and without the moveable median barrier.

Prior to the public comment, a brief discussion by Board members ensued, including the following:

Director Martini made the following comments and inquiries:

  • He inquired as to which capital projects could possibly be deferred in order to fund the $2 million in studies for a physical suicide deterrent system. In response, Mr. Mulligan stated that other than capital purchases of Bridge maintenance equipment, the largest upcoming Bridge maintenance capital project is the Main Cable Recoating project, which has already been deferred since 2000 for a variety of reasons, and which the District should not defer further. Mr. Mulligan further stated that the District could apply for state and federal grants for the suicide deterrent project, but would have to compete with other agencies for the limited funding available.

Director Ammiano made the following comments:

  • He commended District staff for their hard work in preparing such a comprehensive report in such a short time.
  • He cautioned the Board to be careful not to make “either/or” decisions, wherein an important capital project would have to be delayed or eliminated in order to undertake a physical suicide deterrent project.
  • He noted that funding may be available for the project from the San Francisco Department of Public Health.
  • He emphasized the importance of engaging the mental health community, who may be willing to provide pro bono services for the project.
  • He inquired as to whether architectural aesthetics could be blended into the project. In response, Mr. Mulligan cited the example of the Golden Gate Bridge Public Safety Railing project, which benefited from the involvement of an Architectural Advisory Panel.

Director McGoldrick inquired as to the comparative estimated costs of preliminary studies, design and construction for both a moveable median barrier and a physical suicide deterrent system. In response, Mr. Mulligan stated that those costs are estimated as follows: (1) moveable median barrier – preliminary studies, $2 million and design/construction, $20 million (in 2004 dollars); and, (2) suicide deterrent – preliminary studies, $2 million and design/construction, $15-25 million (depending on alternative selected).

Director Murray made the following comments and inquiries:

  • She stated that she wholeheartedly supports a suicide deterrent system on the Golden Gate Bridge, and believes that such a system could be constructed while still maintaining both the structural and aesthetic integrity of the Bridge.
  • She urged the Board to revisit the criteria for a suicide deterrent as soon as possible.
  • She stated that the Board should not belabor funding issues, noting that in her opinion, once the District embarks on a physical suicide deterrent project, funding would become available from a variety of sources. She stated that the County of Marin would take action to support development of a suicide deterrent system and commit County funds for the project. In addition, she stated that the Marin Community Foundation could help with local grants or fundraising efforts.

Director Reilly made the following comments and inquiries:

  • She noted that $2 million represents only 1% of the District’s total budget, and that is important that the District commit to developing a physical suicide deterrent system in order to save lives.

Public Comment

The following members of the public expressed their support for a physical suicide deterrent system on the Golden Gate Bridge:

1. John Kevin Hines, who survived a jump off the Golden Gate Bridge in 2000;
2. Patrick Hines, father of John Kevin Hines;
3. Dr. Mel Blaustein of St. Francis Memorial Hospital;
4. Karen Fitzgerald, advocate for a physical suicide deterrent system on the Bridge;
5. Martha Stookey, Teacher at International High School, supporting the family of suicide victim Jonathan Zablotny;
6. John Vidaurri, San Francisco Suicide Prevention, Inc.;
7. Mary Zablotny, mother of suicide victim Jonathan Zablotny;
8. Roger Grimes, advocate for a physical suicide deterrent system on the Bridge;
9. Joyce Pavlovsky, advocate for a physical suicide deterrent system on the Bridge;
10. Sarah Cherny, partner of suicide victim Philip Holsten;
11. Joan Quan, parent at International High School, supporting the family of suicide victim Jonathan Zablotny;
12. Robert Cherny, father of Sarah Cherny and friend of suicide victim Philip Holsten;
13. Eve Meyer, Executive Director of San Francisco Suicide Prevention, Inc.;
14. Robert M. Guernsey, Citizens for a Safe Golden Gate Bridge;
15. Anne Fleming, friend of suicide victim Philip Holsten;
16. Terry and Mike Oxford, parents of suicide victim Jennifer Marie Oxford;
17. Bruce Gurganus, Mental Health Director for County of Marin;
18. Renée Milligan, mother of suicide victim Marissa Imrie; and,
19. Dave Hull, father of suicide victim Kathy Elizabeth Hull.


Following the public comment period, discussion by Board members resumed, as follows:

Director Harrison made the following comments:

  • She expressed her support for a physical suicide deterrent system, but noted that following three years of service cut backs, layoffs and deferment of capital projects important to the sustainability of the Bridge structure, the District does not have $2 million in available funding to begin the project.
  • She suggested that perhaps revenue from the implementation of a bicycle and pedestrian toll could be earmarked to pay for a suicide deterrent system.

Director Shahum made the following comments:

  • In response to Director Harrison’s comment stated above, Director Shahum respectfully disagreed, stating that it would be inadvisable to connect the two projects.

Director Boro made the following inquiries and comments:

  • He inquired as to the feasibility of installing a safety net underneath the Bridge as a suicide deterrent. In response, Mr. Mulligan explained that such a net could be problematic, particularly for rescue efforts by District and law enforcement personnel.
  • He stated that the District has an obligation to pursue studies of a moveable median barrier as well as to pursue studies of a physical suicide deterrent system, and concurred with the General Manager ’s suggestion that wind tunnel testing be performed simultaneously on both types of proposed structures.
  • He noted that the District always retains the option of completely closing down access to the Bridge sidewalks, although, in his opinion, he stated that this would not be a reasonable option.

Director Ammiano made the following inquiries and comments:

  • He suggested that creative funding solutions be pursued, such as public-private partnerships or state mental health funding, and that it would be prudent for the District to collaborate with experts in the mental health community in developing the project.
  • He stated his confidence that a practical solution will be found, and urged the Board to expedite the process of developing a physical suicide deterrent system.
  • He suggested that the District solicit the support of California Senators Feinstein and Boxer and to consider requesting that the CEQA/NEPA environmental review process be waived due to the seriousness of the suicide issue.
  • He suggested that a special task force or advisory committee be formed to discuss funding for both the suicide deterrent project and the moveable median barrier project.
  • Director Smith suggested that he would pursue the possibility of having volunteer union construction forces assist with any eventual construction of a physical suicide deterrent system.

Director Martini made the following comments:

  • He noted that the question of a physical suicide deterrent system is not solely a District issue, but should involve the community at large in seeking funding and design solutions.
  • He noted the difference between a moveable median barrier and a physical suicide deterrent system with respect to the District’s level of liability.
  • He cautioned that before embarking on development of a physical suicide deterrent system, the Board should consider other factors, such as the feasibility and cost of a moveable median barrier, the District’s ongoing budgetary constraints and the District’s obligations to its employees as well as its Bridge and transit customers.

Director Reilly made the following comments and inquiries:

  • She suggested that the public be engaged in the process, perhaps by holding a physical suicide deterrent system design contest to solicit creative solutions from the design community.
  • She urged the Board to find the $2 million in funding and proceed with the project as soon as possible.

Director Murray made the following comments and inquiries:

  • She stated that the she believes that developing a physical suicide deterrent system is not only a public health issue, but also a public safety issue.
  • She urged the Board to take action on proceeding with development of a physical suicide deterrent system at this time.

Director Brown inquired as to whether a horizontal suicide deterrent, extending laterally out from the Bridge sidewalks, could be feasible. In response, Mr. Mulligan answered in the affirmative, noting that such a design could be studied as one of the alternatives.

Director Dufty made the following comments:

  • He urged the Board to move forward with development of a physical suicide deterrent system as expeditiously as possible.
  • He pledged his time and effort to the project and stated that with his 14 years of political experience in Washington, D.C., he would assist in seeking federal funding for the project.

Chair Eddie expressed his appreciation to the public speakers on behalf of the Committee of the Whole for the courtesy and respect they showed towards the members of the Board of Directors, as well as the eloquence of their presentations.

Director Pahre cautioned the Board not to let the sense of urgency regarding a physical suicide deterrent system overtake the District’s obligations to undertake concurrent projects already in process. She noted that realistically, the preliminary studies for a physical suicide deterrent system would take 18 months to two years to undertake.

President Middlebrook made the following comments:

  • She expressed her thanks to the public speakers, noting that the Board members have been deeply touched by the emotional testimony.
  • She stated that the Board of Directors has made extraordinary efforts over the past few years to solve its fiscal crisis, including the painful process of layoffs. She further stated that while the District ’s financial deficit is still quite serious, the will of the Board appears to be supportive of moving forward with development of a physical suicide deterrent system.
  • She urged fiscal caution while proceeding with the project.

Celia Kupersmith suggested that, based upon the Committee’s discussion, it would be appropriate for the Committee to take action at this time to support proceeding with the study of a physical suicide deterrent system on the Golden Gate Bridge, as outlined in the staff report, beginning with the reassessment of the criteria for an effective suicide deterrent, and to direct staff to develop creative funding solutions for such a project, including seeking funding from public and private sources.

Staff recommended and the Committee concurred by motion made and seconded by Directors MARTINI/SMITH to forward the following recommendation to the Board of Directors for its consideration:

RECOMMENDATION

The Building and Operating Committee recommends that the Board of Directors approve proceeding with development of a physical suicide deterrent system on the Golden Gate Bridge; with the understanding that the first steps will include identifying and pursuing funding from local, state, federal and other sources for the initial design and environmental studies required prior to undertaking construction of a physical suicide deterrent system, and the development of evaluation criteria for use in said studies, as outlined in the attached resolution.

Action by the Board - Resolution

AYES (12): Directors Ammiano, Brown, Cochran, Dufty, Eddie, Martini, Pahre, Shahum and Smith; Second Vice President Boro; First Vice President Harrison; President Middlebrook
NOES (0): None

   
2.

Authorize Execution of a Professional Services Agreement with Elliott Bay Design Group Relative to RFP No. 2005-FT-6, Consultant to Provide Technical Specifications, Drawings and Contract Support for Spaulding Vessel Refurbishment

In a memorandum to Committee, Deputy General Manager/Ferry Division James Swindler and General Manager Celia Kupersmith reported on staff’s recommendation relative to Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 2005-FT-6, Consultant to Provide Technical Specifications, Drawings and Contract Support for Spaulding Vessel Refurbishment. The report provided background information on the Spaulding class vessels (M.S. Sonoma, M.S. San Francisco, and M.S. Marin), including description of previous upgrades to the engines and main propulsion elements, as well as routine maintenance of the Spaulding vessels. The report noted that in the almost thirty years that the vessels have been in service, only minimal upgrades have been undertaken to the interior and exterior passenger spaces, prompting the need for this RFP. The scope of work for RFP No. 2005-FT-6 will include development of drawings and technical specifications focusing primarily on passenger space furnishings and systems, such as seating, deck coverings, lighting, ceilings and other passenger amenities.

The report stated that on January 11, 2005, five proposals were received by the District from naval architectural firms in response to the RFP, one of which was deemed non-responsive for not submitting the required federal certifications. The report also stated that the remaining four proposers, were evaluated by a staff evaluation committee based on specific criteria and ranked according to the firms ’ qualifications and experience in the following areas:

  • Ferry vessel design and refurbishment;
  • Understanding of this specific project; and,
  • Performance on other similar projects.

Through this evaluation process, it was determined that Elliott Bay Design Group of Seattle, WA, was the most qualified. The report further stated that staff and the Attorney for the District have reviewed the proposal from Elliott Bay Design Group and have determined that the proposer has properly executed and submitted all required documents, and that the proposal is technically responsive to the specifications. The Disadvantage Business Enterprises (DBE) Program Office has determined that due to the lack of subcontracting opportunities for this project, there is no DBE participation anticipated during the performance of this contract.

Staff recommends that a Professional Services Agreement be executed with Elliott Bay Design Group, Seattle, WA, relative to RFP No. 2005-FT-6, in an amount not-to-exceed $425,000, to provide drawings and technical specifications to upgrade and refurbish the Spaulding class vessels; and, that a contingency budget be established in the amount of $50,000 for this project. The report stated that funds in the amount of $475,000 to support this project, including the contract price and the requested contingency, are included in the Fiscal Year 2005 Ferry Division Capital Budget. A copy of the report is available in the Office of the District Secretary.

Staff recommended and the Committee concurred by motion made and seconded by Directors MIDDLEBROOK/MARTINI to forward the following recommendation to the Board of Directors for its consideration:


RECOMMENDATION

The Building and Operating Committee recommends that the Board of Directors authorize execution of a professional services agreement with Elliott Bay Design Group, Seattle, Washington relative to RFP No. 2005-FT-6, Consultant to Provide Technical Specifications, Drawings and Contract Support for Spaulding Vessel Refurbishment, in amount of $425,000; and, establish a contingency budget of $50,000 for this project; with the understanding that requisite funds are available in the Fiscal Year 2005 Ferry Division Capital Budget, to be funded with 80% federal and 20% District funds.

Action by the Board - Resolution

AYES (12): Directors Ammiano, Brown, Cochran, Dufty, Eddie, Martini, Pahre, Shahum and Smith; Second Vice President Boro; First Vice President Harrison; President Middlebrook
NOES (0): None

   
3.

Status Report from District Appointees on Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) Board

This matter was continued to the March 24, 2005 meeting of the Building and Operating Committee.

Action by the Board – None Required

   
4.

Status Report on Engineering Projects

This matter was continued to the March 24, 2005 meeting of the Building and Operating Committee.

Action by the Board – None Required

   
5.

Public Comment

Public comment was received relative to Item No. 1, above.

   
6.

Adjournment

All business having been concluded, the meeting was adjourned at 12:05 p.m.

   


Respectfully submitted,


James C. Eddie, Chair
JCE:JST:KBE:kbe
Attachment

 


GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO. 2005-

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 __________ day of March, 2005, by the following vote of the Board:

AYES ( ):
NOES ( ):
ABSENT ( ):

________________________________
President of the Board of Directors

ATTEST:____________________________
Secretary