California Coastal Multifamily: 628 Issues Found

Summary: The reflected ceiling plan (A2.5) shows INNER LOBBY 100B with a ceiling height tag of '9'-0\''. However, a separate elevation note '+5'-6\' A.F.F. TYP.' is also shown in the same vicinity (near the INNER LOBBY 100B / adjacent area). If this '+5'-6\' A.F.F. TYP.' note represents a ceiling/soffit/overhead element in an occupiable space or...

Why it matters: If the '+5'-6\' A.F.F. TYP.' condition applies to any occupiable portion of the interior circulation/space, it could trigger plan-check comments and require redesign/field rework (raising soffits, rerouting MEP, revising lighting/ceiling systems).

Suggested next step: Confirm what '+5'-6\' A.F.F. TYP.' represents on the RCP near INNER LOBBY 100B and exactly what area/element it applies to (e.g., ceiling/soffit vs. non-ceiling element). If it is a ceiling/soffit/overhead condition in an occupiable area, revise the design to comply with CBC 1208.2 (minimum 7'-6\') and CBC 1208.2.1 (furred ceiling in no case...

RFI draft: Confirm what '+5'-6\' A.F.F. TYP.' represents on the RCP near INNER LOBBY 100B and exactly what area/element it applies to (e.g., ceiling/soffit vs. non-ceiling element). If it is a ceiling/soffit/overhead condition in an occupiable area, revise the design to comply with CBC 1208.2 (minimum...

Summary: The VRF equipment schedules indicate the project is using R-32 refrigerant, classified as A2L. The VRF condensing units list refrigerant charges of 37.36 lbs and 39.35 lbs of R-32 (A2L). The VRF fan coil units are located “ABOVE CEILING” serving occupied areas (e.g., lobby, fitness, kitchen), so a leak from refrigerant-containing equipment...

Why it matters: This is a major code compliance issue that can require a system redesign (different refrigerant/system type or different compliance path) and will likely delay permitting/plan check and equipment procurement if not resolved before construction.

Suggested next step: Provide a code compliance narrative for the VRF R-32 (A2L) system demonstrating how it complies with CMC 1104.6 for human comfort applications (including system classification and applicable exceptions). If it cannot comply, revise the design to a permitted refrigerant/system for the intended occupancy and application.

RFI draft: Provide a code compliance narrative for the VRF R-32 (A2L) system demonstrating how it complies with CMC 1104.6 for human comfort applications (including system classification and applicable exceptions). If it cannot comply, revise the design to a permitted refrigerant/system for the intended...

Summary: The VRF system branch controllers are scheduled in occupied building rooms (e.g., “RESTROOM - 113”, “SHOP - 1108”, and “HALL - 1201”) and are shown using refrigerant “R-32” with classification “A2L”. CMC 1106.1 requires a refrigeration machinery room where the condition in 1106.1.4 exists (system contains other than a Group A1 refrigerant). The...

Why it matters: This is a major life-safety/code compliance issue that can force a late redesign (relocate equipment, create a machinery room, or change refrigerant/system type). If a refrigeration machinery room is provided for this R-32 (A2L) system, the required emergency ventilation rate is extremely large per Table 1106.2.5.2 (minimum 32,500 CFM for...

Suggested next step: Confirm the compliance approach for the R-32 (A2L) VRF system with CMC 1106.1/1106.1.4. Revise the design to either (a) provide a code-compliant refrigeration machinery room and relocate indoor refrigerant-containing components (including branch controllers) to it, or (b) relocate refrigerant equipment outdoors where permitted by the CMC 1106.1...

RFI draft: Confirm the compliance approach for the R-32 (A2L) VRF system with CMC 1106.1/1106.1.4. Revise the design to either (a) provide a code-compliant refrigeration machinery room and relocate indoor refrigerant-containing components (including branch controllers) to it, or (b) relocate refrigerant...

Summary: The mechanical schedule lists split system heat pump/condensing unit SCU 2-1-1 serving “TELECOM - 120” with refrigerant “R-32” classified “A2L” and a refrigerant weight of “4.7” lbs. CMC 1104.6 states that in nonindustrial occupancies, A2L refrigerants shall not be used in high-probability systems for human comfort, with exceptions that limit...

Why it matters: This is a flammable refrigerant compliance risk. If CMC 1104.6 applies to this system, the scheduled A2L charge over the exception limits can trigger plan check comments/denial and may require equipment/refrigerant redesign (e.g., different equipment/refrigerant, different system configuration, or reduced charge). Late discovery during...

Suggested next step: Confirm whether SCU 2-1-1 is a high-probability system used for human comfort in a nonindustrial occupancy and whether it is listed factory-sealed equipment intended to comply with CMC 1104.6 exceptions. If CMC 1104.6 applies, revise the design to comply by selecting listed equipment and limiting A2L charge to code-allowed quantities (2.2 lb...

RFI draft: Confirm whether SCU 2-1-1 is a high-probability system used for human comfort in a nonindustrial occupancy and whether it is listed factory-sealed equipment intended to comply with CMC 1104.6 exceptions. If CMC 1104.6 applies, revise the design to comply by selecting listed equipment and...

Summary: The mechanical plan shows a return air connection/grille ('R1' and '12\'øRA') in the 'KITCHEN ROOM'. The CMC prohibits taking return air from a kitchen.

Why it matters: If installed as drawn, the return-air inlet location can be rejected at plan check/inspection and require redesign/relocation of return ductwork and ceiling devices, causing schedule impacts and rework.

Suggested next step: Confirm whether 'KITCHEN ROOM' is intended to have any return-air inlets. If yes, provide code-compliant approach (e.g., relocate return to an approved room/hall) and revise ductwork/device locations accordingly.

RFI draft: Confirm whether 'KITCHEN ROOM' is intended to have any return-air inlets. If yes, provide code-compliant approach (e.g., relocate return to an approved room/hall) and revise ductwork/device locations accordingly.

Summary: The mechanical piping plan shows refrigerant piping routed from terminal units toward/into the area labeled “EXIT HALLWAY 1201.” The CMC prohibits installing refrigerant piping in a “means of egress.”

Why it matters: If installed as drawn, this routing would be subject to AHJ rejection and would likely require rerouting the refrigerant piping out of the exit corridor, causing redesign and construction rework/delay.

Suggested next step: Revise the refrigerant piping routing so it is not installed in the “EXIT HALLWAY 1201” (means of egress). Provide a compliant alternate route and update the plan accordingly.

RFI draft: Revise the refrigerant piping routing so it is not installed in the “EXIT HALLWAY 1201” (means of egress). Provide a compliant alternate route and update the plan accordingly.

Summary: The sheet identifies the system as “VRV 2-1-1 (R-32)” and depicts a VRV/VRF refrigerant piping arrangement with a branch controller serving multiple indoor fan coil units (FC-2-1-1 through FC-2-1-6) via distributed refrigerant piping. This is a direct refrigerant system. Per CMC 1103.2.1, the system would be classified as a high-probability...

Why it matters: If this VRV/VRF installation is classified as high-probability and used for comfort conditioning in a nonindustrial occupancy, the use of R-32 (A2L) is a fundamental plan-check risk under CMC 1104.6 and may require a redesign (different refrigerant/system approach or a clearly qualifying exception with substantiation).

Suggested next step: Confirm whether VRV 2-1-1 is intended for human comfort conditioning in a nonindustrial occupancy and provide the code basis for the system’s high-/low-probability classification per CMC 1103.2.1 (i.e., whether leaks would enter occupied space). If classified as high-probability, revise the design to comply with CMC 1104.6 or provide...

RFI draft: Confirm whether VRV 2-1-1 is intended for human comfort conditioning in a nonindustrial occupancy and provide the code basis for the system’s high-/low-probability classification per CMC 1103.2.1 (i.e., whether leaks would enter occupied space). If classified as high-probability, revise the...

Summary: The sheet’s construction notes specify the sanitary sewer as “4' SDR-35 SEWER” with a minimum slope of “S=0.0100” (i.e., 1.00%). The sewer schedule also lists multiple 4' PVC sewer segments at “1.00%” slope. CPC 718.1 requires building sewers to be installed at a uniform slope of not less than 1/4 inch per foot; even where the AHJ approves the...

Why it matters: If installed at the noted minimum slope, the building sewer/lateral is likely to fail plan check or inspection, and could require regrading, rerouting, or reconstruction of the sewer trench after installation—creating significant schedule delay and cost overrun.

Suggested next step: Revise the 4' sanitary sewer (building sewer/lateral) design to meet CPC 718.1 minimum slope (1/4' per foot), or provide documented AHJ approval for reduced slope and revise the drawings so 4'–6' sewer piping slope is not less than 1/8' per foot. Confirm and update the sewer schedule and any notes stating “S=0.0100 MINIMUM.”

RFI draft: Revise the 4' sanitary sewer (building sewer/lateral) design to meet CPC 718.1 minimum slope (1/4' per foot), or provide documented AHJ approval for reduced slope and revise the drawings so 4'–6' sewer piping slope is not less than 1/8' per foot. Confirm and update the sewer schedule and any...

Summary: The mat slab penetration/utility details explicitly show plumbing being embedded within the concrete mat slab (not just sleeved through). CPC prohibits plumbing piping from being directly embedded in concrete or masonry.

Why it matters: If plumbing piping is embedded as detailed, it is a direct code violation that can trigger plan check rejection and/or field correction (removal and rerouting/sleeving of piping), creating major schedule delays and concrete demolition/rework cost.

Suggested next step: Confirm whether any plumbing piping is intended to be embedded within the mat slab. If yes, revise details to eliminate direct embedding (e.g., route plumbing under slab in trench, or provide an approved sleeved/chased arrangement acceptable to the AHJ) and clearly differentiate plumbing vs. electrical conduits in the slab details.

RFI draft: Confirm whether any plumbing piping is intended to be embedded within the mat slab. If yes, revise details to eliminate direct embedding (e.g., route plumbing under slab in trench, or provide an approved sleeved/chased arrangement acceptable to the AHJ) and clearly differentiate plumbing vs....

Summary: The reflected ceiling plan labels the rooms as 'KITCHEN 117', 'STOR 118', and 'SORT 116'. The Room Finish Schedule assigns '117 | SORT' and '118 | KITCHEN' (and also includes a separate row for '118 | STOR'). This creates conflicting room numbering/room descriptions between the reflected ceiling plan and the finish schedule.

Why it matters: Conflicting room numbers and room descriptions can result in applying incorrect ceiling finishes/heights and other finish requirements to the wrong rooms. This can affect pricing, submittals, and installation, and can cause rework if finishes are installed per the wrong room designation.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct room numbering and room names for SORT/KITCHEN/STOR in this area and revise the Room Finish Schedule and/or the reflected ceiling plan so the room numbers and descriptions match consistently.

RFI draft: Confirm the correct room numbering and room names for SORT/KITCHEN/STOR in this area and revise the Room Finish Schedule and/or the reflected ceiling plan so the room numbers and descriptions match consistently.

Summary: Sheet A6.2 defines glazing type GL-4 as being for railing glazing. However, sheet A6.5 uses GL-4 as the glazing type in the storefront schedule for storefront marks JJ, KK, and LL. This is a direct inconsistency in how GL-4 is applied (railing glazing vs storefront glazing).

Why it matters: If GL-4 is ordered/installed per the A6.2 definition (railing glazing) but is actually intended for storefront glazing (or vice versa), this can create incorrect glazing selection and potential life-safety/code compliance risk depending on location and required performance (laminated/tempered/rated, etc.).

Suggested next step: Confirm whether storefront marks JJ/KK/LL are intended to use GL-4, or if a different glazing type should be scheduled for those storefronts. If GL-4 is intended for storefront use, revise A6.2 glazing definition/location to include storefront applications (or revise A6.5 to a correct glazing type).

RFI draft: Confirm whether storefront marks JJ/KK/LL are intended to use GL-4, or if a different glazing type should be scheduled for those storefronts. If GL-4 is intended for storefront use, revise A6.2 glazing definition/location to include storefront applications (or revise A6.5 to a correct glazing type).

Summary: The drawing general notes state that Portland Cement Concrete (P.C.C.) is to be “CLASS 560-C-3250 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.” Section 03 30 00 requires minimum 28-day design strength of 5,000 psi for exterior slabs-on-ground, interior slabs-on-ground, foundations, and walls. The drawing’s “-3250” class designation conflicts with the...

Why it matters: If the contractor follows the drawing note, concrete may be ordered/placed at a lower strength than specified, which can result in failed testing, rejection of placed work, structural noncompliance, and major demolition/replacement delays and cost overruns.

Suggested next step: Confirm required concrete strength/class for all cast-in-place concrete on this project. Revise the general note to align with Section 03 30 00 (or explicitly list separate concrete classes/strengths for civil flatwork vs structural concrete where applicable).

RFI draft: Confirm required concrete strength/class for all cast-in-place concrete on this project. Revise the general note to align with Section 03 30 00 (or explicitly list separate concrete classes/strengths for civil flatwork vs structural concrete where applicable).

Summary: The EVCS accessibility detail indicates a detectable warning size of 30'x48'. The concrete paving specification requires truncated dome detectable warning panels to be 36'x48' rectangular panels, so the drawing detail conflicts with the specified product size.

Why it matters: If fabricated/installed per the drawing, the detectable warning panels will not match the specified size, creating a likely failed inspection and requiring removal/replacement and associated concrete/demo patching.

Suggested next step: Confirm required detectable warning panel size for EVCS areas and revise detail(s) to match spec (36'x48'), or provide an approved spec modification if 30'x48' is intended.

RFI draft: Confirm required detectable warning panel size for EVCS areas and revise detail(s) to match spec (36'x48'), or provide an approved spec modification if 30'x48' is intended.

Summary: The FIRE EXHIBIT notes specify underground fire service utilities as “AWWA C-900 Class 200 pipe.” Section 33 11 16 requires AWWA C-900 fire water piping to be Pressure Class 235 and 305 (UL listed). This is a direct material/pressure-class conflict.

Why it matters: If Class 200 pipe is procured/installed, it may not meet the specified pressure class requirements, creating a high risk of rejection during submittal review/inspection and resulting in replacement and schedule impacts.

Suggested next step: Confirm the required pressure class for underground fire service mains on this project. Revise the FIRE EXHIBIT notes/details to match Section 33 11 16 (Class 235/305) or issue a spec revision if Class 200 is intended.

RFI draft: Confirm the required pressure class for underground fire service mains on this project. Revise the FIRE EXHIBIT notes/details to match Section 33 11 16 (Class 235/305) or issue a spec revision if Class 200 is intended.

Summary: The FIRE EXHIBIT “Hydrant Specifications” state residential/commercial hydrants must have “one 4 inch port and two 2 1/2 inch ports.” Section 33 11 16 specifies on-site fire hydrants as Model 3775 with “two 4 inch steamer outlet and one 2-1/2 inch hose outlet.” The drawing’s required outlet configuration contradicts the specified hydrant...

Why it matters: This discrepancy can lead to ordering/installation of the wrong hydrant type, requiring replacement to meet the project specification and likely Fire Department acceptance, causing cost and schedule impacts.

Suggested next step: Confirm the required on-site fire hydrant model and outlet configuration. Update the FIRE EXHIBIT hydrant requirements to match Section 33 11 16 (Model 3775: two 4-inch steamer outlets and one 2-1/2-inch hose outlet) or revise the specification if the Fire Department-required hydrant differs.

RFI draft: Confirm the required on-site fire hydrant model and outlet configuration. Update the FIRE EXHIBIT hydrant requirements to match Section 33 11 16 (Model 3775: two 4-inch steamer outlets and one 2-1/2-inch hose outlet) or revise the specification if the Fire Department-required hydrant differs.