My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2003-04-14
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2003
>
AgdaPkt 2003-04-14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2011 2:33:19 PM
Creation date
4/10/2003 11:58:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Agency Type
City Council
Date
4/14/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
165
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
APR -04 -2003 FRI 05:12 PM THE INNISFREE COMPANIES FAX NO. 4153325417 <br />r � APR. 4.2003 6: 05PM D.E.S. ARCHITECTS 650 364 2618 NO. S57 <br />April 4, 2003 <br />David C. firmer <br />President <br />Innlsfroe co, <br />2658 Bridgeway <br />DES Sausalito, CA 0406s <br />"Ca'TACTA Project On Broadway <br />"WA496Ai 8520.01 <br />Re: Nick Watry s Structural Engineering Concept <br />Dear David: <br />F.2/4 <br />I had prepared some Initial (and very rctlgh) thoughts regarding Nick Watry's <br />suggestions. As you know, most of the Items he discussed were relating to orientation <br />of the entry and traffic flow. The only structure) Issue he raised was that of Changing <br />from the two -way short span system to the long span system. <br />It Is Important to note that the structural system Is Independent of the decision to move <br />the entry point Into the garage. Either system (short or long span) oould be made to <br />work with either entry looa8on. <br />have not seen the plan Nick has referred to In the 3128/03 letter to Bruce Wedsterand, <br />butt understand his description he Is proposing 4 long bays of diagonal parking. I did <br />cfrcu ate) so 1 believe his plan cross e aisle <br />n e ed to b e wa ( 20 f feet Is allow thisfl I t assume <br />he has out aside enough room for mechanical equipment, vertical circulation and parking <br />Psyment/secunry /management. <br />Also, In Nick's Exhibit A he has some math errors, The width of 4 4 bays of 57 feet 1.3 <br />feet le actually 231, not 227. The math error results In 1,656 s.f, more and the cross <br />W519 results In 4,620 e.f, more for a 10181 footprint area of 100,178 Q., which is only <br />about 7,000 e,f. lass than the ourrert ehart span design. On the positive slag of his <br />design, diagonal parking would be preferable In a high turnover structure such as this. <br />But again, this is not a structural issue and Is up to your parking designer, IPD, to <br />comment on parking layout and spacing. <br />If we use the long open system: <br />• We would need intermediate columns within 20 feet of the outside edges of the <br />structure to support the exterior wail above, <br />• I suspect with some additional steel on the upper floors we oould transfer all <br />other loads to the long &pan support columns as Nick has suggested. <br />We may lose a few parking stalls to accommodate shear walls In the garage. <br />P. 02 <br />eASliroyo„xrnm Aad,wo4C11Y CLxdord, sea ra 6 5""463 Fa66o;6r7g1 rooA.,.�aam <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.