Laserfiche WebLink
0 10 <br />Markus Barrera-Kolb <br />From: Markus Barrera-Kolb <br />Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 4:59 PM <br />To: 'Drew Martin' <br />Cc: Sally Knodell <br />Subject: 14 E Casino Road (131903-001): exiting question <br />Attachments: Casino Road egress diagram.pdf, IBC 1016.2 with commentary.pdf, IBC1006 with <br />commentary.pdf <br />Good afternoon Drew, <br />Thanks for taking the time to review and consider with us the way in which Environmental Works states on our T Sheets <br />that exiting system code compliance is achieved for the Casino Road Community Hub TI project at 14 E Casino Road <br />(correction item no. 6). Please refer to the attached occupancy and exiting diagram for the following: given the <br />cumulative occupant load of 74 (see highlight) our sense is that we need to state on the T Sheet that we are providing <br />two exit paths from the interior spaces at the east side of the building. Here we are drawing on IBC 1006.2.1. Note the <br />attached highlighted official code commentary, stating that "if the occupants of a room are required to egress through <br />another room... the rooms are to be combined to determine if multiple doorways are required..." Please also see Table <br />1006.2.1 for the number of required exits for this space with its combined load. <br />The two exits we are proposing for this calculated occupant load are the existing entry door at the south-east corner of <br />the building and the existing exterior door at what will be a meeting room at the north side. In our reading of IBC 1016.2 <br />Egress through intervening spaces, this would indeed be permitted, as the meeting room and the general spaces of the <br />Community Hub are clearly accessory to one another (please see highlighted code section). Please also see the <br />highlighted code commentary, which makes it clear that the intent of the code is to permit egress through even multiple <br />intervening spaces. <br />Given these readings of the code we are concerned about our professional liability related to including only one path of <br />egress from this area and removing the exit sign from the meeting room door, as put forth in correction item 6. <br />Thanks again for reviewing this question, we greatly appreciate your speedy responsiveness and collaborative spirit — <br />we look forward to your feedback and submitting our permit correction response at our earliest ability. Our client is <br />ready and eager to start construction, needing a September completion due to an access constraint. <br />Cheers, <br />Markus <br />Markus Barrera- olb CPHC <br />Project Manager <br />206.787.1381 <br />Pronouns : he 1 him <br />eworks.org I sign up for our newsletter <br />environmental WORKS <br />Community design Center <br />