Access Appeals Commission
ACCESS APPEALS COMMISSION
MINUTES
Specialr Meeting
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
111 Sutter Street
1. |
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL |
||
|
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: |
Ms. Enid Lim, President |
|
|
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: |
Vice-President Francis K. Chatillon |
|
|
CITY REPRESENTATIVES: |
Ms. Judy Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney |
|
2. |
PUBLIC COMMENT:
|
||
3. |
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Continued until next meeting. |
||
4. |
REVIEW OF COMMUNICATION ITEMS Continued until next hearing. |
||
5. |
CONTINUED APPEAL: Appeal # 04-03
The commissioners adjourned to a demonstration of the operation of the collapsing of the revolving doors at the entry to 111 Sutter Building. A doorman, when called by motion-activated sensors at the entry, performed the operation.
Commissioner Baltimore inquired of the other access to the building via the Galleria building next door.
Ms. Well indicated that the entry was located on a separate property. Mr. Torres-Gil made note of the resume of Paul Church that was distributed by Susan Pangilinan. It was received on Tuesday February 22.
Mr. August Longo stated that for an historical building (the operation of the revolving doors) was acceptable situation and he urged the AAC to grant them an exception for a period of years. He also urged the commission to tell them, when they come back in three years, that they look at other ways of doing it. There are buildings around town that have revolving doors like this that are accessible. There may be ways to adapt it, he doesn’t know, but at least they should look into those things - this is the 21st century. People with disabilities are out and about more and more and we have to have ways that work better than this. With this current situation, he recommends that the commission grant it.
Commissioner Baltimore made a motion to grant the appeal for three years because it is an historical building and because the doors can be utilized in sufficient time.
Commissioner Brown recommended amending the motion by adding that within three years other means of entry should be explored because, without ruining the facade or the historical features, that are doors that can be adapted to one side, not both.
Commissioner Baltimore said that she would suggest that it be a suggestion for next time as opposed to asking them to do it because things are changing and for the next time it is something they may want to take into consideration.
Ms. Boyajian stated that if the motion to amend is not accepted by the maker of the motion, then the vote is on the motion and then if that fails someone can propose an alternative motion.
Commissioner Baltimore said that she accepted it as a suggestion.
|
||
|
Commissioner Brown |
Yes |
|
|
|
||
6. |
COMMISSIONERS AND STAFFS QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS: |
||
7. |
PUBLIC COMMENT: |
||
8. |
ADJOURNMENT: |
||
Rafael Torres-Gil
Senior Building Inspector
Department of Building Inspection
Secretary to the Access Appeals Commission