Laserfiche WebLink
from the deck. She does not think it should be assumed that the ramp needs to go over <br />the curb. When they pour the new forms, as Mr. Winkler said, they will not pour the <br />forms where the chair and the ramp will be. The second related to ADA accessibility. As <br />she previously stated, this pool does not have to be ADA accessible because the <br />Federal Government is not making it accessible. However, in the Access Board which <br />wrote the ADA for the Federal Government and is itself a government body, there are a <br />number of accessible entries: zero depth, the water ramp, and the chairlifts. The <br />chairlift is considered an accessible entry into a large pool. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner stated there is no argument that the curb is an architectural feature and <br />there is no argument that it is Council's pledge to the people of University City to <br />maintain the traditional architecture. So the issue is this, are you going to break your <br />pledge or not break your pledge? The idea of adding to it has nothing to do with <br />maintaining the architecture that is already there. Of course we want to add new things. <br />People who vote against it should be willing to explain why they will break their pledge <br />to people who voted last November on Proposition K. <br /> <br />Mayor Adams said the architectural footprint was not to be changed; the basic size and <br />shape of the pool would be retained. He then alluded to problems resulting from the <br />installation of a fiberglass liner, which led to the Council considering replacing the <br />current pool with a large rectangular one. It was decided not to do so, because it would <br />change the character of the pool. Mayor Adams mentioned this to explain that by <br />"maintaining the footprint" he meant not replacing the current pool with a rectangular <br />one, as considered many years in the past. He never meant changing the wall. <br /> <br />He does not understand how the visually impaired are affected by the curb, and feels <br />that no one has explained this satisfactorily. If a curb is not an impairment, why are <br />ramps necessary at various intersections? He agreed with Ms. Welsch that the Federal <br />Government has not created a policy relating to pools, so it a moot point. <br /> <br />Ms. Welsch then commented about three items. The first was to say that if the Council <br />had just said "maintain the footprint of the pool" she believes she could legitimately vote <br />against the curb, if she has problems with it, because the footprint is the outline in the <br />ground. We did not say the "footprint" we said the "architecture." This six inch curb <br />around the whole pool adds a strong visual border to our pool, which is a part of the <br />architecture, the frame of our pool. She believes this is truly architecture. If we had just <br />said "footprint' she would agree that we should have no qualms changing it, but we said <br />architecture. This is an architectural feature. Finally, as far as people with visual <br />disabilities, if someone is walking without a cane, to feel the edge of the pool, the curb <br />does help because they touch it instead of walking into the pool, if they are walking <br />without a cane. It is a help to people with visual impairments, not a negative. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner asked for a roll call vote. <br /> <br />Mayor Adams restated the question. The question is whether the City will return a <br />change order for the architect to design a curb for the pool. <br />Page 14 <br /> <br /> <br />