The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1219 MONTEREY_BLDG-1668-2018 Revision,;,„ Building & Safety Division Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 Request for Design Revision & Deferred Submittal to City Approved Plans T 805.781.7180 F 805.781.7182 Project Address: 12 i `l M o �J Rli� Contact Person: D A'� P -2-\k\J I c Phone: SnS 2 35 So 2 -4 'JECPlan Revision ❑ Truss Calculations ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Fire sprinkler ❑ Fire Alarm Other Revision fee required at time of submittal. If adding square feet, please submit a Construction Permit Application, not a Revision. Provide a detailed description of all proposed changes list all changes separately): 1tyl TUjD rNT-�F_AjoQ NON �-oAD �EA(1INCo 2. /p ppf�� N0 1 S�'}oW IN6 Er�iSDIN� MINI 5�1�1T �OGf3TrovJ 3. ADD OlgE NEYV 4. ao� Proposed Changes Submitted By: 0,4V"iD 7V V1C Phone: BOS 23S 5-62 � 1 Date: 93 17- FfACE USE ONLY Application Number: tans # Energy Date: # Structural Calcs # Soils Reports Received By: # Specs # Truss Calcs Other: -1Co Revised 2014 I ?A' 'i R P H Y STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS MURPHYSE.COM 1 805-748-3693 November 10, 2021 Dave Zuvic Dave Zuvic Construction 793 E. Foothill Blvd A-2 San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Reference: Smith Volvo TI's Door Addition 1219 Monterey St. San Luis Obispo, CA Dear Mr. Zuvic: APPROVED JAN 0 6 2022 BUILDING DIVISION CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AS REVISED Thank you for meeting site to show us the area in question. As part of your permitted TI project you added a window in the wall at the service area. The window is 60" wide and 42" tall and 34" from the building comer. The City has asked for justification of the opening and the header. The building in question is an old building of masonry and concrete walls with wood framed roofs. The area that you are altering appears to have been originally built without walls. At some point as we discussed, it appears that walls were added and these exterior walls are essentially non bearing partition walls. When checking the header we considered the walls to bear roof load as if it were a bearing wall. The joists are parallel to the walls. The 4x6 header that was installed checks out, see attached calculation. The lateral force resisting system for this building is antiquated. The exterior walls in the service/parts area are just plaster and stucco. While these elements have some strength and stiffness to resist seismic forces, they are rarely relied on in modem construction design. So, while they can't provide much in terms of lateral force resistance, they will provide some resistance and should be considered the lateral force resisting system. Compared to modem standards, there is very little in the way of a lateral seismic force resisting system present. Lightly reinforced concrete and masonry buildings do not have a good track record for seismic performance. I would recommend a voluntary seismic retrofit of this building to address the antiquated system. When looking at putting in this window in the exterior wall, this alteration reduces the in -plane capacity of this wall if subjected to seismic forces. The 2019 California Existing Building Code (CFBC) mandates that if you are making alterations you need to bring the structural elements up to current building code with a few exceptions to this requirement. One such exception is that if the demand to capacity ratio is increased under 10% for the lateral force resisting members, then you do not need to upgrade the elements to current building code requirements. Since you are not altering the demand (load), then we will just look at reductions to the capacity. The building line in question has 56 feet of wall segments, if you install a window 5.5 feet wide, you are reducing the capacity by just under 10% and per the CEBC exception, you are not required to upgrade the structural elements. Again, this wall line has very little capacity, but since that is all that is there, it is our opinion that taking out more wall width would be violating this exception. T j Y: i..t'� i CODE .Cum . Sincerely, n i !^ r , t v L U I s U i i .• r BUILDI , DlVIS,v•I C TY Dr - T� TO BE y+ I ON LE ST 0 CALL r ;n N rSrS �CT(C°'`.,3 -% 7Sl-IIe,0 Chris Murphy, SF V p R K I N G DAY IN n D Date: 11 /1019M 1 Plans shall not be charged or lli :. �d ^ •theut aut``^r; 7:,tion fr m r and r_aictj Div,!--, r,i,, ;,;,at of the 6ot 1C. loval at, any, be construed to be a petr.:it for. Gr ar, app violation of any city OrO'',a;,ce 793 E. Foothill Blvd Suite A Box 191 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 • Ph. 805.748.3693 F'A'�URPHY Project Title Smith Volvo TI Window Engineer: CM Project ID: 2021-58 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ProjectDescr: MURPHYSE.COM 1 805-748-3693 Wood Beam - - - - - Project File: smith volvo.ec6 LIC# : KW-0e011337, Buld:20.21.10.20 Murphy Consulting Engineers (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION: Header at Service CODE REFERENCES Calculations per NDS 2018, IBC 2018, CBC 2019, ASCE 7-16 Load Combination Set: IBC 2018 Material Properties Analysis Method: Allowable Stress Design Fb + 900.0 psi Load Combination IBC 2018 Fb - 900.0 psi Fc - PHI 1,350.0 psi Wood Species Douglas Fir -Larch ". Fc - Perp 625.0 psi Wood Grade No.2 1 Fv 180.0 psi Ft 575.0 psi Beam Bracing Completely Unbraced D(0.075) Lr(0 06) 5 v 4x6 Span = 6.0 ft E : INbdulus of Elastiafty Ebend-xx 1,600.Oksi Eminbend - xx 580.0 ksi Density 31.210pcf Applied Loads Service loads entered. Load Factors will be applied for calculations Uniform Load: D = 0.0250, Lr = 0.020 ksf, Tributary Width = 3.0 ft, (Roof) Uniform Load : D = 0.0220 ksf, Tributary Width = 9.0 ft, (Wall) DESIGN SUMMARY • Maximum Bending Stress Ratio = 0.6131 Maximum Shear Stress Ratio = 0.336 : 1 Section used for this span 4x6 Section used for this span 4x6 fb: Actual = 835.44psi fv: Actual = 54.50 psi Fb: Allowable = 1,362.12psi Fv: Allowable = 162.00 psi Load Combination D Only Load Combination D Only Location of maximum on span = 3.000ft Location of maximum on span = 0.000ft Span # where maximum occurs = Span # 1 Span # where maximum occurs = Span # 1 Maximum Deflection Max Downward Transient Deflection 0.023 in Ratio = 3176 > 360 Span: 1 : Lr Only Max Upward Transient Deflection 0 in Ratio = 0 <360 n/a Max Downward Total Deflection 0.126 in Ratio = 572-180 Span: 1 : +D+Lr Max Upward Total Deflection 0 in Ratio = 0 <180 n/a Maximum Forces & Stresses for Load Combinations Load Combination Max Stress os _ Moment a ues 5 aryalues Segment Length Span e M V Cd CFN C i Cr Cm C t C L M_ fb F-b V fv F'v D Only 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length = 6.0 ft 1 0.613 0.336 0.90 1.300 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.23 835.44 1362.12 0.70 54.50 162.00 +D+Lr 1.300 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length = 6.0 ft 1 0.540 0.295 1.25 1.300 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.50 1,019.05 1887.72 0.85 66.48 225.00 +D+0.750Lr 1.300 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length = 6.0 it 1 0.516 0.282 1.25 1.300 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.43 973.15 1887.72 0.81 63.49 225.00 +0.60D 1.300 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Length = 6.0 ft 1 0.208 0.114 1.60 1.300 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.74 501.26 2410.62 0.42 32.70 288.00 Overall Maximum Deflections Load Combination Span Max."-" Defl Location in Span Load Combination Max. "+" Deft Location in Span +D+Lr 1 0.1258 3.022 0.0000 0.000 S Project Title: Smith Volvo TI Window Engineer: CM Project ID: 2021-58 Project Descr: Wood Beam Project File: smith volvo.ec6 LIC#' KW-06011337, Build•20.21.10.20 Murphy Consulting Engineers (c) ENERCALC INC 1983-2021 DESCRIPTION: Header at Service Vertical Reactions Support notation : Far left is #1 Values in KIPS Load Combination Support 1 Support 2 Overall MAXimum 0.999 0.999 Overall MINimum 0.180 0.180 D Only 0.819 0.819 +D+Lr 0.999 0.999 +D+0.750Lr 0.954 0.954 +0.60D 0.491 0.491 Lr Only 0.180 0.180