The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991/09/23 Board of Appeals & Advisors Agenda Packet (2) / -¿ Wm 3;:¿ CITY OF CHULA VISTA SCANNED BUILOING AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT ~)¿;ÄYldr/) APPLICATION FOR A CODE MODIFICATION OR USE OF Date AN ALTERNATE MATERIAL OR METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION 1. a. The Board of Appeals is legally empowered to (1) investigate and advise on the suitability of alternate materials and types of construction, (2) provide reasonable interpretations of the building laws where the meaning may be obscure, and (3) recommend new legislation to the City Council, The Board may recommend approval of minor deviations of the building laws in certain cases. b. The Director (Building Official) is authorized to permit code modification and to approve the use of alternate materials and methods of construction. 2. All Appeals must be within the scope of authority described above. Only those items requested in writing in this appeal will be considered, 3. Board of Appeals hearings are open for public attendance. You will be notified of the hearing date. 4, Address all communications to: Director, Building and Housing Department, P.O. Box 1087, Chula Vista, California 92012. APPLICANT FILL IN BELOW THIS LINE, THIS SIDE ONLY - PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE See Exhibit I I Tract Job Address: 850 Laqoon Drive Lot A BlockN/A owner's Name Owner's Ma ling Address Telephone No. z: Starboard Development for 1202 Kettner Blvd. ,Fifth FIr. 0 ~ Rohr, Inc. San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 231-6700 ¡ Designer s Name lelephone No. Job Status 0 BSHA (619)239-2353 GJ Proposed [] Existing Bldg, w.. z ~ I:.xlsting Use Proposed Use 1an File No. D Under Construction Parking Garages Addition to Parking in Plan Check Garages 0 Complete New Building Process Clearly define all items requested in the appeal. Submit Other Documents GJ Yes plans and other documents as necessary to explain and Submitted With 0 No support reques t, Reques t REFER TO EXHIBIT B ATTACHED l- V'> UJ :::> 0- UJ '>:: State why it is necessary or desirable that this request be approved and what arranoement, device or construction is proposed as equivalent to that required. z: 0 REFER TO EXHIBIT C ATTACHED ~ l- e( U ~ w.. ~ l- V'> " . ~8..0( ~N'" L&--. Ii' , :::> '"::> ..." I / Owner or Authorized Agent Signature ll/Utii) / Date U'rw~f' LM M, =ILL '"1\10."\\ If additional space is required, attach separate sheet. .J:&;\.()R... Vl~ ft' """ ',»c,¡-J<\ THIS SIDE FOR DEPARTMENT'S USE ONLY er ,.,.... B-3 plancheck Invest1gate y: t e Director ate Asst. Brad Remp of Bldg. & Hsg. 9/18/91 0<1) zz See Attached Staff Report ceo .... <1)1- zu 0.... .....<1) I- ........ 00 zo ou u .... u..-J o a:> ce ....u 0::.... O-J 0..0.. ....0.. o::ce J <I).... See Attached Staff Report zz 0.... ....~ !;;:o:: oce zo.. ........ ~~ uz: ........ 0::0 -J ..,.... => <I) a:> <!I z:.... ....x 01- z ....u.. u..O Da te of Acti on z <:> - I- U ce u.. 0 >- 0:: .~ => <I) 6-419 (Revised 8/79) - ..;:;'1:..., .it:. . ':;01 tJ":;!;c::.:;. J:'~ÏlH "='H11 V.ll:-'=:O'..J CoJ..:":"· ':::"'~'='-',,--..:.o--,..:.;.' THB CITY OF CHULA. VISTA PARTY DISCLOSURE STATEMBNT Statement of disclosure of certain ownership intel'e$U. paymenU. or campaign contributions. on all matters ,,""1...11 will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Comnùssion, and all other l ,1al bodies. The following infonnation must be disclosed: 1. List the names ,of an persons having a financial interest in the contract, i.e., contractor, subcontractor, - material supplier. Rohr Industries. Inc.. a Delaware Corporation ~- 2. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals ownin¡ more than 10% of the shares in the coxporation or ownin¡ any partnership interc:st in the partnership. -.Not acplicable. --- .- ~ 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust. TIst £he names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. ...Not appii"ahle. ". Have you had more than $250' worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve month.s7 Yes_ No g If yes. please indicate person(s): 5. Please identify each and every person, including any agenU, employees, consultants or independent contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. Ian Gill - Starboard Development Art Spllr:rpn - Rohr Tnrlllc;tr;es.. Inc. -- . 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Councilmember in the CllIICnt or preceding election period? Yes _ No L If yes, state which Counci1member(s}: ~ i8 defined u: "My Individual, jinn, co-partMrshlp, joim W1ItIIn, (lU(Ic/alioll, sOOal club. frtllernal organitalion, Ct1TpOIYltIoII, ISltllfl. trwt./'fICfIÌWT. syndlœu. thLJ twl any other ""WIly, cI1y twl ccuntry, city, munlclj>aUty, district or othe1' polulcal ltubdMsjon, or any other group or ~lno1ion aalng iU a unil." (NOTE: AUaclI additiODll paaeø u ft_~'Y) RO~, INC. . Date: _ d~-"",..&-< /~ /C;ý ( r¿~~ 2'~gnature of contractor/applicant - * Not to our knowledge. EilúVle K, ~1.Ut6 , M.6.wtaYLÍ S eCAe.taJtlj Print or type name of contractor/applicant [A-U3IA:DISCLOSI!.TXT !Jt.:!'ib=,~~ ~ !!:~G_'r,:~~,~ EXHIBIT A . 1'. ponJ,œ. of QUa~tu $octJ.cm 112 of tlANCBO DE LA. WoCIOJI, ~ the c:J.t,. of Chlilll. , ,1:&, 00=1'.)' of! Sa~ ·nieso. State of ea1tfow... .ccot'~ t.o Hap thereof No. 166 fUed in 1;)1. o!tLee of ~ eo_t.y ~Qo't'õe= of San DiegQ oo=t.y, he!ng moro pnUc:U1adY d..cdbtid ... foUcnra: .~~ at. the SOUW.'t. cc:ner of .dd (lu&t'UI' secdim 172 at IhowA em Recoa:d of 8I1n,,' !il03S1 CIa fl:1o ûûa Office of the llecot'deJ: of .do4 Cou:1tyr t:bè1:!.C' &10::1& tbe, klt.edy bolm4&:)' of I&id. quart.e= &ectiœ North 17" 46' 57" Weat: 3S1.Òl feet. (lleoot'ð Jio=th 1.1· 47', U" Veat :U~.00 feet), thence It'''91t\8 u..id Ea.otad,. bþunduy , dona ~ Sout:.hea:I.,. boœdu7 of 011.14 aeco!;d of Survey 9031 Qð. it.. ke1:ot'17 pt'olongiltJ.cm. South 7~· :u.' 56" Weat (!l.eeord Nort.1l 7~0 1Z' 1Z' ¡"'øt) :1.70.02 int to t-be Southeutedy OOl:Uor Qf 100:0::4 o£ 81U'Vey 9029 &..èI the ntJZ PO:LN~ 011' BEGDm'!.N"G of thh õè,cdption, thence ccmtinuizl* ~th 7%· J.J..' 56" Vut lU3.S7 feet (R.ecord.,' U33.46 teet): ~C. ccmtU¡uina a1œ¡ eM boonda.ry of ....iel, 'i.ecoÑ of Slmtey lloa:th 66" '8' 30' ,Veat 73.95 feet (llecol:d Hor-.Þ 89- 58' 55' Vo.t 73.94 f.et.); thence I South 64· 48' 01" VeGt 339.~6 feet (Recor4 South 84" 47' ~6" V.ot 339.69 feet); ~e~e North 38" 00' 20' Veat 328.14 feet (2ecord ~otth 38° 00' 25' V..t 328.08 feet), ~ðnc. .o~t~ 31" 19' ~1' Veat 217.16 feet 'iecord .o~~ 31" 19' $6' Ve.t ~16.9~ feet); ~enc. 50r~ 72" O~' 09' ~~,t 703.95 faet (Reeol:d North 7~' 03' 22' Eut 703.!" feeth ~nce Morth :1.7" 56' 51' Velt 2.09'.96 feet (iecord North 17' 56' 'B" v..t 300.00 feet); thence Hoa:th 72° 03' OIP hat 1182.1' feet, (!1ocord North 72· .' 03' U" ~.t nez.OS feeth themee SO\1~ 17" 46' 51" sa.t 946.30 faet (1lecord South 17' 47' 11" Eaat 'e46.06 £..t) to t~ t&uz POIN! O~ BEGINNING. !XCE3i'~nIG ~OH 1'&rcel 10Z, in the City of Chul& v.bu., COIm",. of ¡;an Diego, 1 l11:ate of C&l1fø:mi&. accorcU.:\g to &ecol:l1 oE Sun.,. Hap Jlo. :!J.71.9, f:Lle4 in tÞ!! ;1cc of ~ Co=ty Tl.eco;oder of Sa:!. Ðj.ego Co\;¡\.t)'. Ãupvt 10, 1988. - I " . ' . " ., . , , · Reauest: EXHIBIT B Exemption from providing physically challenged parking in parking garages. Justification: EXHIBIT C We are submitting two options for providing equivalent parking facilities for the physically challenged. We believe that the intent of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Part 2 is to provide access to the physically challenged in relative ease. Therefore. the parking facilities should be located as close to the accessible building entry as possible in order to minimize the distance traveled and the need to cross traffic lanes. etc. We have provided parking spaces for the physically challenged close to the card- access lobbies and the H.C. ramp that leads to the public access lobby in Phase 1 Office Building, which is under construction at this time. Whereas. if we provide such spaces in the parking garages. these individuals would have to Havel a longer distance and have to cross traffic lanes in order to reach their destinations. It would also be physically and economically unfeasible to provide such spaces on the P-1 levels of both the parking garages due to the high water table at P-1 levels and the height limited by the City of Chula Vista for the P·2 levels. In the Phase 2 Office Building expansion we feel that an equivalent facility (covered parking spaces) should be provided for the physically challenged. However, we feel that accessible garages are not the answer since the garages are further away from the buildings that they serve. The site restraints also make them more costly to build. We have provided two solutions to this dilemma: Alternate A: Provides for covered parking spaces on grade adjacent to the Phase 2 Office Building (see sketch) and the garages are not accessible. Alternate B: Provides some parking spaces in the north parking garage restricted to the southeast corner of the P-2 level as indicated (in the sketch). The rest of the north garage and the south garage are not accessible. We feel that Alternate A provides a better parking location for the physically challenged for the following reasons: 1. There are six (6) covered spaces for the physically challenged which are located adjacent to the Phase 2 Building. There are no traffic lane(s) to cross in order to access the building. These spaces are closer to the Phase 2 Building than if these spaces are located in the garage. 2. The covered spaces for Phase 1 Office Building, whether located in the garage or adjacent to the Phase 2 Building, the physically challenged would have to cross traffic lane(s) to get to the Phase 1 Building. The covered spaces referred to in 'Alternate A', are closer to the Phase 1 Building than the spaces provided in the garage. 3. When these spaces are located in the garage, there is not enough room in the garage to provide a path of travel where the physically challenged does not have to travel behind a vehicle. To do so would be physically and economically unfeasible due to the site constraints. 4. Due to site and economic constraint, parking for the physically challenged would not be located in the south parking garage. There would be too many traffic lanes to cross and too long a distance of travel in order to access the Phase 1 Building. We hope that this clarifies the reasoning behind our proposals. 9504/rn091691.hlz SEP 18 '91 08:32 BSHA SAN DIEGO 619/239-2353 P.2 <EXHIBIT "D") PARKING COUNT Phase I 245,000 s.f. 817 cars Phase n 127,537 s,f. 42~ cars Total Parkini Requirements 1,242 cars per Title 24 Phase I 8 HC required Phase I & II 11 HC required Per FDA 21 HC required Phase I & II BSHA provided 22 (Option A) Total Parkini 1,242 cars (11 HC required and in total) 702 parking spaces are covered 540 parking spaces are uncovered 56% of all parking is covered 11 HC required Option A - 6 covered S4 % of all HC parking covered , t$lMløI091791,bII PHASE II ROHR OFFICE COMPLEX GENERAL INTRODUCTION Presented herein is the Design Development documents for the Rohr Phase II Office Complex. These documents constitute the continuation of the schematic design process in developing the client's program and building design character. This stage has also included the refmement and coordination necessary with the building systems such as structural, mechanical and electrical. The project refinement and coordination of all disciplines is necessary to assure "a really polished work of architecture". The attached Design Development documents represent the Project Team's effort. BASIS OF DFSIGN A. Project Description: The Phase II Rohr Industries Office Complex project consists of a six story building, together with the expansion of two separate parking structures. The Northern parking structure incorporates the central HV AC plant. The building is approximately 127,537 square feet gross, the North parking structure will have an additional deck added for a total buildout of three decks. The South garage will have three additional decks added for a total buildout of five parking levels. B. Site: The site, located within the greater Chula Vista Bay Front Development area, is bordered by Lagoon Drive to the North, the Rohr plant to the South, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge to the West and a San Diego Gas and Electric power line right-of-way to the East. The area is rectangular and 11.44 acres in size. The Phase II building will be placed in the parking area between the parking garages and East of Phase I office building. C. Site Design: On the West side of the Phase II office building there will be a design integration with the Phase I office building front entry plaza and the new Phase II building plaza. The design will incorporate enriched concrete paving, planting and planters. D. The Building: The building is six stories in height of Type II, FR construction fully sprinkled. Generally the color and material palette for this building will be the same as the Phase I office building in order to maintain the character of the campus. E. Food Service: Food service for the building will consist of a kitchen that will be utilized to maintain food warm for serving the adjacent dining room with an occupancy of 40 persons. Food will be prepared in Phase I building kitchen and transported to Phase II kitchen ready to serve. PARKING COUNT Phase I 245,000 s.f. 817 cars Phase II 127,537 s.f. 425 cars Total Parking Requirements 1,242 cars Per Title 24 Phase I 8 HC required Phase I & II 11 HC required Per FDA 21 HC required Phase I & II BSHA provided 22 (Option A) .... September 3, 1991 Mr. Brad Remp. C.B.O. BSHA, INC. Assistant Director of Building and Housing Architecture Building and Housing Department Planning 276 Fourth Avenue Interior Design Chula Vista, CA 92010 Engineering 919 Fourth Avenue Suite 200 Re: Rohr Office Building - 9504.25/1.0 San Diego. California 92101 Covered Parking Spaces for the Physically Challenged 619239-2353 FAX 619 239·6227 Dear Mr. Remp: We are submitting two options for providing equivalent parking facilities for the physically challenged. We believe that the intent of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, Part 2 is to provide access to the physically challenged in relative ease. Therefore, the parking facilities should be located as close to the accessible building entry as possible in order to minimize the distance traveled and the need to cross traffic lanes, etc. We have provided parking spaces for the physically challenged close to the card-access lobbies and the ramp that leads to the public access lobby in Phase 1 Office Building. Whereas, if we provide such spaces in the parking garages, these individuals would have to travel a longer distance and have to cross traffic lanes in order to reach their destinations. It would also be physically and economically unfeasible to provide such spaces on the P-1 levels of both the parking garages due to the high water table at P·1levels and the height limited by the City of Chula Vista for the P·2 levels. In the Phase 2 Office Building expansion we feel that equivalent facility (covered parking spaces) should be provided for the physically challenged. However, we feel that accessible garages are not the answer since the garages are further away from the buildings that they serve. The site restraints also make them more costly to build. We have provided two solutions to this dilemma: Alternate A: Provides for covered parking spaces on grade adjacent to the Phase 2 Office Building (see sketch) and the garages are not accessible. Alternate B: Provides some parking spaces in the north parking garage restricted to the southeast corner of the P·2 level as indicated in the sketch. The rest of the north garages and the south garage are not accessible. President Gordon R Carrier, Architec1 Director of Design" ... Robert L Davis. Jr., Archi1ect - · Rohr Office Complex September 3, 1991 Page 2 We feel that Alternate A provides a better parking location for the physically challenged for the following reasons: 1. There are six (6) covered spaces for the physically challenged which are located adjacent to the Phase 2 Building. There are no traffic lane(s) to cross in order to access the building. These spaces are closer to the Phase 2 Building than if these spaces are located in the garage. 2. The covered spaces for Phase 1 Office Building, whether located in the garage or adjacent to the Phase 2 Building, the physically challenged would have to cross traffic lane(s) to get to the Phase 1 Building. These covered spaces are closer to the Phase 1 Building than the spaces provided in the garage. 3. When these spaces are located in the garage, there is not enough room in the garage to provide a path of travel where the physically challenged does not have to travel behind a vehicle. To do so would be physically and economically unfeasible due to the site constraints. 4. Due to site and economic constraint, parking for the physically challenged would not be located in the south parking garage. There would be too many traffic lanes to cross and too long a distance of travel in order to access the Phase 1 Building. We hope that this clarifies the reasoning behind our proposals. If you have any questions, please call us. Thank you. ~~C~~Q ~ H. Linda Zubiate Project Manager HIZ:vdd cc: Pam Buchan: City of Chula Vista Ian Gill: Starboard 1090391.hlz ~ 0 ' et.'''f!A . ~ . " ~--- ,,^ ~ ~~..,,-,_....-... - , 0 . . .' -to ~ t'}\fI ~ ~."o !:ø <1\F1 ¡>~~ §",¡; I r<!'+~ -"'j; \"13"< " i \ \ \ I I I ~ ~';9b~ ¡r--g- -- I I I ,.. r¡¡ ~I) '\ I } I { l' ~~ I I I b I I -t' - :so I , , Z Q> I I -+ (.\' - '" I I ..0 Q.. 0 .... CI - - -oì , I - ~ \ , \Oz, I , , .,'.., , \ I I I ... 1 0, J ~~ r ~ \ J I 1 I "' ~J", A I '" II '" '1! ~ HI ... b °11 1-\ ¡¡;~ E :l>- x ~ iF % \f) -0 tt" ¡.. I ~~': -<~ II ~ ~ij '" I ~ ~ -¡¡ -<~-4 ::¡:;~ ~~ J ~--\ Ó 0: I '" % ] I ~~ '" r ~ I I I _0> I 5 I I I \11 "'9»- I ~ I I I 6 b 0, 'i. 1\)r- I I J G\ ~ , , I I -I ., ~~ ' ~ rffi , I , I (i;"M i I': ~O m \iJN ~ ,. t ~ .. ... ~ ~~\1'1 ! ~.,.o r !:- .. i"> ~ rT\~;1. ~~.;z~ J -~~'< \ ! \ I I I I I ~ ~\~ b ~ f"--tr -- I . I } , I I I I :. ~~~ b I , I I I ' - -=1 .s- f \",\ z· <) I -- -0'\ J -to _'" I , ~ Q. ~O~ " \ 1 I .. t=! I , I \f):z;. I \ , I 1 0, J I 1 " ~ \ I ~] ~~ ~ ~~ r <II , II I 1'\ °11 1-1 ¡;; z. ... b ~ i\?r II ~ ~~! m '> '" I "''''S: ..dJi fo ." -(~4 I \f) -0 it" I ~'!ì Ó 0: I \ ) ~ I tI\ I ::¡::~ r ~ 11 I '" ~ I ~~ .. 5 1\ Ih G I I I _III I ~ I z.~ 'i. N90r 0, ( li G\ b I I 1\)"- I I I \ (!Ja , J I ~ , -\ ~~ I rffi :¡-M 90 I <= 11 J\) \~.JN ,~ " : ,0 :1. r 'I , r : I I ii,' I ' e····_ .-. , f_~JII'j{'~ .- _..... . '. . '. . . - " _~._~. _.~..,.... _....,~W"f - ~::.: -~.... '.....~ --' .... . ...... ~,.Iðc..£ 8Y 7'16- ",",YSJdoU.,; Y &.HA/..L,SNtí6Ð , ~~ I -,-8 t $ 1~ ~. 16 ~ ~ -'-0 " ~ 1 ... ~ ~ --- \II -.-8 ,-- rn . ~ t ,. ~~ ~ -.-8 ~ ~ ¡:~ -·-8 >\)I\~ -.-0 - \) ~~ t >. : ~ ~ 'a~ ~'-8 ~ ~ a¡ ~ = '17» G:I Ñ ,- ~ , ~ I ¡ ., , " c..~.-~e ._'._4. - __ ,_·.-..._u ,,_"._.-,'._...<-.~.. -.._ .____ _,_ ""'""'~^ ~ ~".- .. .- ,-- '::::..:: ......... . . , -.-0 ~ -.-6 {t ~ it -.-0 ~ g- -f~ s¡ ~ -~ ~.-G '. -.-0 f~ ~~ -.-0 , ~ ...'" ~...o Ï{¡' '\ ~ _.~ \t -t æ- :;;¡ ~ ~ 1> - JJ ~ ~ CI) ~ ~ I'i ,.... {\ , j' I i ! , ~. .' " [~' " I f 'I :11 II II (\I .... ,- I>. -: , l- I ~ , i- .."- ~ I - i II ." , ~ti ~J $ ~f .. }œ,~ ¿- ~l (" " , ~. STAFF REPORT DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND HOUSING TO, BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADV~~ FROM: Kenneth G. Larsen, C.B.O., Directo RE: 850 LAGOON DR. ROHR INDUSTRIES DISABLED ACCESS PARKING FACILITIES Department of Building and Housing Staff has reviewed the information provided by the applicant for the above referenced project and respectfully submits the following staff report for your consideration. REPORT OF CONDITIONS AND APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS: The appeal request deals with the location of required parking spaces to serve persons with disabilities. The site is currently under construction with all excavation work apparently completed, Plans for Phase I of the two parking structure project have recently been submitted to the Department for plan review. These plans depict the project as two structures of approximately 2 to 3 stories. The applicant is appearing before the Board at this time to request approval of an alternate parking arrangement to accommodate future expansion of these parking structures. Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Section 7102(a) requires each lot or parking structure where parking is provided for the public as clients, guests or employees to be provided with accessible parking. Section 71 02(g) mandates that vertical clearance within parking structures be a minimum of 8 feet 2 inches where required for accessibility. This section also provides for an exception " Where the enforcing agency determines that compliance with Section 7102(g) would create an unreasonable hardship, an exception may be granted when equivalent facilitation is provided". This section also establishes a requirement that such a finding of equivalent facilitation be ..... subject to ratification through an appeals process". FINDINGS: The applicant is proposing to provide disabled access parking spaces directly adjacent to the proposed office buildings in lieu of providing spaces within the more remote multi- floor parking structures. The applicant believes that this arrangement will provide better access to the buildings for persons with disabilities and will eliminate the need to engage Staff Report 850 Lagoon Dr. Rohr Industries in a costly redesign of the parking structures. In evaluating the proposal, Staff focused on several issues. First, the proposal includes twice as many disabled access parking spaces as is currently required by Title 24 (22 vs. 11). These additional spaces are being provided in anticipation of the need to comply with new Federal standards that will be imposed in the future. Secondly, in our opinion, the location of the disabled access parking spaces does provide greater ease of use than housing the spaces within the parking structures. Third, Staff concurs that there exists significant site restrictions that would constitute an unreasonable hardship should the facility be required to undergo redesign to accommodate the vertical height clearance requirements. Lastly, the proposal does include approximately the same proportion of covered disabled parking spaces as is provided for use by the non-disabled population, thus providing each group with an equivalent opportunity to obtain a covered parking space. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board adopt a finding that compliance with the 8 foot 2 inch vertical clearance requirement for the two parking structures constitutes an unreasonable hardship and that proposal "An as submitted by the applicant does provide equivalent facilitation to the requirements established in Section 7102(a) of Trtle 24, California Code of Regulations. NOTE: The applicant's representatives have been contacted and will be present at the meeting to present their application. / 2