2018-1498 Doug's Mazda Service Center #2 Struc and NS.pdf
Page 1
DATE: March 21, 2019
TO: Frank Karreman
Email: Frank@3rkarchitecture.com
FROM: Leif Bjorback, Building Official
RE: Plan Check: BLD2018-1498 2nd review
Project: Doug’s Mazda Service Center
Project Address: 22214 Highway 99
During review of the plans for the above noted project, it was found that the following information,
clarifications or changes are needed. Please provide written responses to each comment, and submit revised
plans/documents to a permit coordinator in the Development Services Department.
Please respond to the following structural and non-structural review comments from Beck and Associates.
City of Edmonds
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
(425) 771-0220
Beck & Associates, PLLC
Structural Engineering & Code Consulting
16425 SE 66th Street, Bellevue, WA 98006 ● beckpllc@msn.com ● PH: 206-313-3739
March 8, 2019
Leif Bjorback
Building Official
City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020-3145
Subject: Mazda Service Center Addition (Structural Review)
Permit: BLD18-1498
Per your request, Beck & Associates has completed a second structural review of the drawings and
calculations for conformance with the 2015 International Building Code (IBC), as adopted and
amended by the State of Washington and the City of Edmonds.
Our review of the plans and calculations indicates that corrections are necessary prior to permit
issuance. The applicant should address the following comments in itemized letter format in addition
to making corrections & revisions to the drawings. Corrections and revisions to the drawing should
be clouded so that they are clearly identifiable.
________________________________________________________________________________
Legend:
Faded text = initial comment adequately addressed – no further action required
Plain text = initial comment (these remain where an additional comment is made)
Blue text = additional comment in response to the resubmittal
Geotechnical
General
1) The geotechnical report submitted with this permit application is dated June 23, 2017 and is
titled “Showroom and Stormwater Vault Geotechnical Report”. The structural drawings
reference a geotechnical report dated April 10, 2017. Please provide a report that addresses the
geotechnical conditions of the Service Center. If a geotechnical report specific to the Service
Center has not been provided, the geotechnical engineer should either provide one or
specifically indicate that the June 23, 2017 geotechnical report contains recommendations that
are applicable to the Service Center site.
Gravity
General
2) Reference the Basis of Design noted on sheet S001. A floor live load of 50 psf is specified.
However, a live load of 60 psf is used for the design.
a) Provide coordination.
Permit BLD18-1498 (Structural – Rvw-2)
March 8, 2019
Page 2 of 4
16425 SE 66th Street, Bellevue, WA 98006 ● beckpllc@msn.com ● PH: 206-313-3739
b) In response to this item, the engineer references correspondence from February 4, 2019. In
that correspondence, we recommended that a minimum live load of 75 psf be used for
storage, but that the engineer would need to provide calculations that demonstrate that the
anticipated load (based on anticipated items stored and how they are stored) does not
exceed 75 psf. These calculations remain to be provided for our review.
Additionally, we indicate in response to the February 4, 2019 correspondence that the
design live load of the parts storage areas is required to be conspicuously posted in that part
of each story where the loads apply (60 psf at storage at existing construction; 75 psf at
storage at new construction). The plans need to specify this. 106.1, IEBC 402.3.1
The category in Table 1607.1 that most closely resembles the specified “Parts Storage” is
“Storage Warehouses” which identifies a ‘light storage’ live load of 125 psf. IBC 1607.2
indicates that, for occupancies or uses not designated in Table 1607.1, the live load is
required to be determined in accordance with a method approved by the building official.
Either design the new Parts Storage for a live load of 125 psf OR provide detailed
calculations for use of an alternate live load that is consistent with auto parts storage. Revise
the design as required.
Lateral
General
3) The new & existing structures are shown to be integrally connected (no seismic joints are
provided). Reference details 5 & 6/S204. Additionally, reference comments in item 14, below.
a) The effective seismic weight is required to include a minimum of 25% of the floor live load
for all Parts Storage areas (whether existing or new). Revise the design accordingly.
b) The effective seismic weight is required to include contribution of any masonry or concrete
walls. The existence and extent of masonry and concrete walls were previously not clearly
provided within the drawings (either in the architectural drawings or the structural
drawings). Revise the design accordingly.
c) Identify all existing lateral force resisting elements that are being used to resist existing
and/or new lateral loads.
The effective seismic weight is required to include a minimum of 25% of the floor live load for
areas used as storage, such as for Parts Storage. Update the lateral analysis to consider this
increase in seismic weight. ASCE 7-10, 12.7.2
Drawing Sheets
S102 – Second Floor & Low Roof Framing Plan
11) Reference Framing Note #4. A reference is made to Structural Note J.11 & J.12 on sheet S0.1.
This reference is incorrect. Provide coordination.
12) The engineer will need to revise the diaphragm design to consider that the existing and new
structures share a lateral force-resisting system and to consider the required effective seismic
weight. Update the design accordingly. IEBC 403.4; ASCE 7-10, 12.7.2
Provide an analysis of the new diaphragm to transfer loads to the shear wall located along grid
G. Reinforce the diaphragm as determined by the analysis.
Permit BLD18-1498 (Structural – Rvw-2)
March 8, 2019
Page 3 of 4
16425 SE 66th Street, Bellevue, WA 98006 ● beckpllc@msn.com ● PH: 206-313-3739
13) Detail 8/S204 SIM TYP is specified along grid G. The cantilever concrete retaining wall is full-
height at this location. Provide detailing for the specifics of this condition.
S103 –Roof Framing Plan
14) In response to this item the engineer indicates that existing elements are not being utilized to
(laterally) support the Service Center Addition and that the new structure has been designed to
be laterally self-supported. However, seismic joints have not been provided between the existing
structure and the new structure. Reference details 5 & 6/S204. Where additions are not
structural independent of the existing structure, the existing structure and its addition acting
together as a single structure are required to be shown to meet the requirements of Sections
1609 (Wind) and 1613 (Earthquake). Revise the design to either truly make the existing and new
structures laterally independent (with seismic joints designed per ASCE 7-10) or to consider
them together as a single structure to resist lateral loads. Submit calculations to substantiate the
design for the chosen approach. Update design and detailing as required. IEBC 402.4
Provide an analysis and detailing for transfer of lateral loads from the high roof (existing) into
the new roof diaphragm (along grids B & F) for transfer of loads to the shear walls along grids A
& G. Provide a complete load path. Additionally, where existing elements are being utilized,
specify what those existing elements are assumed to be and that they must be field verified.
15) Detail 6/S204 is called out along grid F. This detail is not applicable as it depicts TJIs, whereas the
plans specify roof trusses. Provide coordination and update the detailing accordingly.
S201
16) In response to this item, the engineer indicates that the existing building consists of portions of
masonry walls, in which new door openings will be placed.
a) Update the plans to show the locations and extent of the locations of all existing masonry
walls. The plans must also indicate if the existing masonry walls are reinforced or not, and if
they are, what the reinforcement in the walls is.
b) The IEBC requires existing gravity load-carrying structural elements in which an increase in
design gravity loads of more than 5% occurs to be strengthened, supplemented, replaced, or
otherwise altered as needed to carry the increased gravity load required by the IBC for new
structures. Additionally, any gravity load-carrying structural element whose gravity load-
carrying capacity is decreased as part of the alteration shall be shown to have the capacity
to resist applicable design gravity loads required by the IBC for new structures. Each existing
masonry wall needs to be assessed for increased loads (where new loads are applied to
them) and for decreased capacity (where being modified) to demonstrate compliance with
these requirements. IEBC 402.3, 403.3
c) Unless the existing and new structures are laterally separated from each other with seismic
joints, and if existing masonry walls are used to resist lateral loads, the engineer will need to
demonstrate that the existing masonry (or concrete) walls meet the requirements for design
of new structures. Alternatively, the engineer will need to demonstrate that the
demand/capacity ratio of the structural element with the alteration is not more than 10%
greater than the demand/capacity ratio of the structural element prior to the alteration.
Please note that unless specifically seismically separated from the structure, the walls will
need to be considered as part of the lateral force-resisting system. Alternatively, they must
be seismically separated from the structure so that seismic loads are not imparted to them.
Where no seismic separations are provided, the lateral force-resisting system will need to
Permit BLD18-1498 (Structural – Rvw-2)
March 8, 2019
Page 4 of 4
16425 SE 66th Street, Bellevue, WA 98006 ● beckpllc@msn.com ● PH: 206-313-3739
consider horizontal and vertical combinations of lateral force-resisting elements in
accordance with ASCE 7-10, Ch. 12. IEBC 403.4
d) If there are unreinforced masonry walls in the existing structure, the alteration work is
required to include installation of wall anchors unless an evaluation demonstrates
compliance of existing wall anchorage. IEBC 403.6
Reference 4/S201. No masonry is specified on this project. Either identify the location where this
detail is applicable, or if not applicable, delete it from the drawing set.
17) In response to this item, the engineer indicates that the existing building consists of portions of
concrete walls, in which new door openings will be placed.
a) Update the plans to show the locations and extent of the locations of all existing concrete
walls. The plans must identify the reinforcement of the existing concrete walls.
b) The IEBC requires existing gravity load-carrying structural elements in which an increase in
design gravity loads of more than 5% occurs to be strengthened, supplemented, replaced, or
otherwise altered as needed to carry the increased gravity load required by the IBC for new
structures. Additionally, any gravity load-carrying structural element whose gravity load-
carrying capacity is decreased as part of the alteration shall be shown to have the capacity
to resist applicable design gravity loads required by the IBC for new structures. Each existing
concrete wall needs to be assessed for increased loads (where new loads are applied to
them) and for decreased capacity (where being modified) to demonstrate compliance with
these requirements. IEBC 402.3, 403.3
c) Unless the existing and new structures are laterally separated from each other with seismic
joints, and if existing concrete walls are used to resist lateral loads, the engineer will need to
demonstrate that the existing concrete) walls meet the requirements for design of new
structures. Alternatively, the engineer will need to demonstrate that the demand/capacity
ratio of the structural element with the alteration is not more than 10% greater than the
demand/capacity ratio of the structural element prior to the alteration. Please note that
unless specifically seismically separated from the structure, the walls will need to be
considered as part of the lateral force-resisting system. Alternatively, they must be
seismically separated from the structure so that seismic loads are not imparted to them.
IEBC 403.4
Reference 7/S201. This detail is not specified on the plans. Either identify the location where this
detail is applicable, or if not applicable, delete it from the drawing set.
S202
18) Reference comments in item 16, above.
Reference 2/S202. No masonry is specified on this project. Either identify the location where this
detail is applicable, or if not applicable, delete it from the drawing set.
Please contact me should you have any questions.
Respectfully,
Douglas Beck, PE, SE
Beck & Associates, PLLC
Beck & Associates, PLLC
Structural Engineering & Code Consulting
16425 SE 66th Street, Bellevue, WA 98006 ● beckpllc@msn.com ● PH: 206-313-3739
March 8, 2019
Leif Bjorback
Building Official
City of Edmonds
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020-3145
Subject: Mazda Service Center Addition (Non-structural Review)
Permit: BLD18-1498
Per your request, Beck & Associates has completed a second non-structural review of the
drawings and calculations for conformance with the 2015 International Building Code (IBC), as
adopted and amended by the State of Washington (WSA) and the City of Edmonds (ECC).
Our review of the plans and calculations indicates that corrections are necessary prior to permit
issuance. The applicant should address the following comments in itemized letter format in
addition to making corrections & revisions to the drawings. Corrections and revisions to the
drawing should be clouded so that they are clearly identifiable.
________________________________________________________________________________
Legend:
Faded text = initial comment adequately addressed – no further action required
Plain text = initial comment (these remain where an additional comment is made)
Blue text = additional comment in response to the resubmittal
* Please reference the New Comments section at the end of this letter.
General
1) Please coordinate between drawing sheets related to existing & new building areas.
a) The Site Plan (A1.0) indicates that the footprint of the existing building is 3,792 square
feet. Provide dimensions of the Existing First Floor Demolition Plan and the Existing
Second Floor Demolition Plan on A2.0 to confirm the existing areas of each level.
Dimensions should be provided from outside face of wall to outside face of wall. If the
results are different from what is provided on the Site Plan, update the Site Plan to be
coordinated with the actual areas.
b) In the Project Information section on A0.0, identify the square footage of both existing &
new areas of both the First and Second floors. Areas should be from outside face of wall
to outside face of wall. Additionally, identify the area of existing structure to be
completely demolished (north portion of the existing Second Floor). The areas provided
should be consistent with the dimensions shown in other locations of the drawing set.
We recommend that the information be provided in tabular format for clarity.
BLD18-1498 (NS – Rvw-2)
March 8, 2019
Page 2 of 4
16425 SE 66th Street, Bellevue, WA 98006 ● beckpllc@msn.com ● PH: 206-313-3739
2) Provide a Site Plan that identifies the distance from the closest face of the building to
adjacent property lines on each side of the building. These are the fire separation distance
used in determining rating of exterior walls in accordance with Table 602. It appears that all
fire separation distances will exceed 10’-0” and the exterior walls will therefore not be
required to be rated. However, this information is required to be provided within the plans to
demonstrate that this is indeed the case. Table 602
3) The plans need to specifically state that a sprinkler system, compliant with NFPA13, is
required to be provided throughout the building. Sprinkler increases are utilized to achieve
the allowable height and area. Ch. 5
4) In response to this item, the architect revised detailing on sheet A1.0. However, the design is
incomplete and no calculations/analysis were provided to substantiate the design.
a) Provide complete gravity and lateral (wind, seismic) calculations to substantiate the
design. Revise the design as determined by the analysis.
i) Please be aware of, and demonstrate compliance with, the requirements of ASCE 7-
10, 12.2.5.2 for cantilever column (lateral) systems. ASCE 7-10, 12.2.5.2
ii) Provide a complete load path for lateral loads to transfer from the roof diaphragm to
the cantilever columns. Connections need to be designed for the specific wind and
seismic forces.
b) Identify the specific members that are required to be preservative-treated per the
definition of ‘weather-exposed surfaces’ in Ch. 2 of the IBC. Accordingly, all rafters (rafter
ends are exposed), beams, cross beams, and posts are required to be preservative-
treated or of naturally decay-resistant wood. 2303.1.9, 2304.12
c) The footing thickness in detail 7/A1.0 remains to be specified.
Sheet A1.0 shows a Pergola. Provide complete structural analysis and design/detailing for the
construction of the Pergola.
Accessibility (IBC Ch. 11, ICC A117.1-09)
5) At least one accessible route within the site is required to be provided from public
transportation stops and public streets or sidewalks to the accessible building entrance.
Provide plans and detailing that demonstrate how this will be provided. 1104.1
6) At least one accessible route is required to the buildings on this site. Provide plans and
detailing that demonstrate how this will be provided. 1104.1
7) It is clear that the Auto Parts Storage is an area of primary function and that an accessible
route is required. Please note that additions are also considered alterations (IEBC 410.5) and
that the cost of providing accessibility on a project (other than what is already required by
code) is not required to exceed 20% of the costs of the alterations affecting the area(s) of
primary function. Given that the addition is an alteration, the conclusion is that the ‘cost of
alterations’ is required to include the entire budget of the project. Please reference the
attached sections of the IEBC and associated Commentary which is the basis for determining
requirements.
One potential way to address this issue is to itemize all costs that are going toward accessible
upgrades on this project that are otherwise not required by code. Once 20% of the entire
budget is reached, no more of the budget would be required to be spent on accessibility.
Provide an itemization of the costs of providing each accessible element (such as accessible
parking, accessible toilets, accessible drinking fountains, etc.) and provide a comparison to
BLD18-1498 (NS – Rvw-2)
March 8, 2019
Page 3 of 4
16425 SE 66th Street, Bellevue, WA 98006 ● beckpllc@msn.com ● PH: 206-313-3739
the total budget for the project. The total budget for the project, as well as costs of providing
the accessible elements, should be provided to the City as a contractor’s bid. Please note that
the entire 20% of the budget is required to be spent on accessible upgrades unless all
accessible requirements are met prior to spending the 20% of the overall cost of the project.
Please reference IEBC 410.7 and the associated Commentary.
At least one accessible route is required to connect each accessible story in multilevel
buildings and facilities unless one of the exceptions of 1104.4 is met. Unfortunately, it does
not appear that the conditions of this project will meet any of the exceptions. An accessible
route is therefore required to connect the First Floor and the Second Floor. Accessible routes
are required to consist of one or more of the following components: walking surfaces, ramps,
and elevators. Update the plans accordingly. IBC 1104.4; ICC A117.1-09, Ch. 4
Drawing Sheets
A2.5 – Roof Plan & Details
16) In response to this item, a portion of the roof was changed to unvented roofing. Reference
A2.5 (Roof Plan), Sections 1-4/A3.1, and Sections 1-3/A3.2
a) A vapor barrier is not permitted to be installed on the ceiling side of the unvented
attic/roof assembly. This needs to be specified on the drawings. 1203.3, item 2
b) Where air-permeable insulation (batt insulation) is provided inside the building thermal
envelope, it is required to be applied in direct contact with the underside of the
structural roof sheathing. Update the sections to show and specify that the batt
insulation is required to be installed in direct contact with the underside of the roof
sheathing. 1203.3, item 5
c) The air-impermeable insulation (rigid insulation on the roof), is required to provide a
minimum insulation value of R-10. This needs to be specified in the Sections. 1203.3,
item 5, Table 1203.3
Provide calculations and specifications for eave and ridge ventilation to demonstrate
adequate roof ventilation will be provided. 1203.2
17) The overflow scupper openings are required to be no less than 4 inches high and have a width
equal to the circumference of the roof drain required for the area served, sized in accordance
with Table 1101.12. This needs to be specified on the drawings. UPC 1101.12
Secondary (emergency) roof drainage is required to be provided in accordance with UPC
1101.12. Scuppers are required to be sized to prevent the depth of ponding water from
exceeding that for which the roof was designed. Scupper openings must be no less than 4
inches high and have a width equal to the circumference of the roof drain required for the
area served, sized in accordance with Table 1101.12. UPC 1101.12
New Comments
24) Based on responses from the structural engineer and from detailing within the structural
drawings, it is our understanding that there are existing masonry and/or concrete walls in the
existing structure that are intended to remain and/or be modified.
BLD18-1498 (NS – Rvw-2)
March 8, 2019
Page 4 of 4
16425 SE 66th Street, Bellevue, WA 98006 ● beckpllc@msn.com ● PH: 206-313-3739
a) Architectural drawings need to show the extent of all masonry and/or concrete walls on
the architectural drawings.
b) Clearly show how all masonry and/or concrete walls will be modified (infilled, removed,
etc.).
c) Update sections and detailing to show masonry and/or concrete walls where they occur.
d) Reference the new comments in the 2nd Structural Review letter.
Please contact me should you have any questions.
Respectfully,
Douglas Beck, PE, SE
Beck & Associates, PLLC