California Coastal Mixed-Use: 74 Issues Found

Summary: 10 index entries | 9 perfect matches | 0 mismatched | 1 missing Missing (1) — listed in drawing index but not found in the document: Other: - 11 DETAIL

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 S0.1 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 1 --- 📄 S2.2 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 8

Summary: 9 index entries | 6 perfect matches | 3 mismatched | 0 missing Mismatched (3): A0.00: Expected: COVER SHEET (A0.00) | Actual: COVER SHEET (A0.0)(p1) A1.00: Expected: SITE PLAN (A1.00) | Actual: SITE PLAN (A1.0)(p2) A2.00: Expected: FLOOR PLANS (A2.00) | Actual: FLOOR PLANS (A2.0)(p3)

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 A0.0 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 1 --- 📄 S0.1 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 4

Summary: 10 index entries | 2 perfect matches | 7 mismatched | 1 missing Mismatched (7): A-2: Expected: EXISTING 1ST FLOOR FLOOR LAYOUT PLAN (A-2) | Actual: EXISTING 1ST FLOOR LAYOUT PLAN (A-2)(p2) A-3: Expected: EXISTING 2ND FLOOR FLOOR LAYOUT PLAN (A-3) | Actual: EXISTING 2ND FLOOR LAYOUT PLAN (A-3)(p3) A-5: Expected: EXISTING...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 A-1 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 1 --- 📄 SD1 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 10

Summary: The rebar development length table shows the 'MINIMUM EMBEDMENT LENGTHS FOR STANDARD END HOOKS' column with values for #10 bar as 19' and #11 bar as 22'. These values are less than those tabulated for smaller bars (#8 at 22' and #9 at 25'), which is physically impossible. Hook development length (ldh) is directly proportional to bar diameter...

Why it matters: If a contractor follows these tabulated values for #10 or #11 bar hooks, the provided embedment would be significantly less than required by ACI 318-19, potentially leading to reinforcement pullout failure. This is a critical structural safety issue that must be corrected before construction begins. Permitting agencies may also reject the...

Suggested next step: Request the Structural Engineer of Record to review and correct the Minimum Embedment Lengths for Standard End Hooks for #10 and #11 bars in the rebar development length table on Sheet S0.2. The current values of 19' (#10) and 22' (#11) are less than those for smaller bars (#8: 22', #9: 25') and appear to be a transcription error. Provide...

RFI draft: Request the Structural Engineer of Record to review and correct the Minimum Embedment Lengths for Standard End Hooks for #10 and #11 bars in the rebar development length table on Sheet S0.2. The current values of 19' (#10) and 22' (#11) are less than those for smaller bars (#8: 22', #9: 25') and...

Summary: The Pedestal Schedule specifies (8)#4 vertical bars (As = 8 × 0.20 = 1.60 in²) uniformly for all pedestal sizes. ACI 318-19 Section 10.6.1.1 requires longitudinal reinforcement area to be at least 0.01Ag. For the 12'x14' pedestal, 0.01Ag = 1.68 in² (provided 1.60 in², deficient). For the 12'x18' pedestal, 0.01Ag = 2.16 in² (provided 1.60 in²,...

Why it matters: Insufficient longitudinal reinforcement in concrete pedestals can lead to increased creep and shrinkage effects, potential yielding of reinforcement under sustained service loads, and reduced structural capacity. The worst case (14'x18' pedestal) provides only about 63% of the code-required minimum reinforcement, which is a substantial...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer review and revise the Pedestal Schedule to ensure all pedestal sizes meet the minimum longitudinal reinforcement ratio of 0.01Ag per ACI 318-19 Section 10.6.1.1. Specifically, the 12'x14', 12'x18', 14'x16', and 14'x18' pedestals all require increased longitudinal reinforcement. For example, the 14'x18' pedestal...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer review and revise the Pedestal Schedule to ensure all pedestal sizes meet the minimum longitudinal reinforcement ratio of 0.01Ag per ACI 318-19 Section 10.6.1.1. Specifically, the 12'x14', 12'x18', 14'x16', and 14'x18' pedestals all require increased longitudinal...

Summary: The drawing lists Fv = 1.500 for Site Class D-DEFAULT with S1 = 0.443g. Per ASCE 7-16 Table 11.4-2 for Site Class D, interpolating between S1 = 0.4 (Fv = 1.9) and S1 = 0.5 (Fv = 1.8) yields Fv ≈ 1.857. The value of 1.5 shown on the drawing corresponds to Site Class C, not Site Class D. This error cascades to SM1 and SD1: the correct SM1 = 1.857...

Why it matters: An unconservative SD1 directly affects seismic base shear calculations, story drift checks, and potentially the Seismic Design Category determination. All structural members, connections, and the seismic force-resisting system designed using the incorrect SD1 may be undersized, leading to plan review rejection, construction delays, and possible...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer verify the Fv value per ASCE 7-16 Table 11.4-2 for Site Class D with S1 = 0.443g. Correct Fv to approximately 1.857 and recalculate SM1, SD1, and all dependent seismic design parameters including base shear. Confirm all affected member designs remain adequate.

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer verify the Fv value per ASCE 7-16 Table 11.4-2 for Site Class D with S1 = 0.443g. Correct Fv to approximately 1.857 and recalculate SM1, SD1, and all dependent seismic design parameters including base shear. Confirm all affected member designs remain adequate.

Summary: The Foundation Schedule on S1.0 specifies the F3.4 footing (CONT X 3'-4' X 1'-0') reinforcement as '(6)#4 TOP & BOT CONT DISTRIBUTED REINF & #5@8' MAIN REINF'. In a continuous retaining wall footing, the (6)#4 continuous bars are the longitudinal (distributed/temperature) reinforcement, while '#5@8' MAIN REINF' denotes the primary structural...

Why it matters: This discrepancy directly impacts the structural capacity of the retaining wall footing. If the contractor follows Detail 11 and places #4@12' OC transversely instead of #5@8' OC, the footing will have considerably less reinforcing steel in the primary bending direction resisting lateral soil pressures, potentially resulting in an...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer of record to clarify the correct reinforcement arrangement for footing F3.4: (1) Confirm which bar size and spacing (#5@8' OC or #4@12' OC) applies to the longitudinal direction and which to the transverse direction. (2) Revise either the Foundation Schedule on S1.0 or Detail 11 on S2.0 so that bar sizes,...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer of record to clarify the correct reinforcement arrangement for footing F3.4: (1) Confirm which bar size and spacing (#5@8' OC or #4@12' OC) applies to the longitudinal direction and which to the transverse direction. (2) Revise either the Foundation Schedule on...

Summary: The Foundation / Crawl Space Plan (S1.0) includes a note at the new-to-existing footing connection specifying 'DOWEL (2)#4 OC TOP & BOT REBAR W/9' MIN EMBED INTO (E)FTG W/HILTI-HIT-HY 200 OR EQUIVALENT ADHESIVE, TYP.' The plan calls out Detail 5/S2.0 at this same connection location. However, Detail 5 on S2.0, titled 'DETAIL (N)FOOTING/SLAB...

Why it matters: A 50% difference in adhesive anchor embedment depth (9' vs 6') significantly affects the pullout capacity of the dowel connection between new and existing footings. If the 6' depth is insufficient for the design loads, the connection could fail, compromising the structural integrity of the new foundation. Conversely, if the 9' depth is...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer of record to clarify the required minimum embedment depth for doweling new footing rebar into existing footings using HILTI-HIT-HY 200 adhesive. Confirm whether the 9' minimum shown on the S1.0 plan note or the 6' minimum shown in Detail 5/S2.0 governs, and revise the conflicting document accordingly to ensure...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer of record to clarify the required minimum embedment depth for doweling new footing rebar into existing footings using HILTI-HIT-HY 200 adhesive. Confirm whether the 9' minimum shown on the S1.0 plan note or the 6' minimum shown in Detail 5/S2.0 governs, and revise...

Summary: The Foundation Plan (S1.0) contains two dowel notes referencing Detail 13/S2.0. One note at the F3.4 footing location calls out 'DOWEL (6)#6 TOP & BOT FTG REBAR' and another at the F1.6 footing location calls out 'DOWEL (3)#6 TOP & BOT FTG REBAR.' However, the Foundation Schedule on the same sheet lists footing F3.4 with '(6)#4 TOP & BOT CONT...

Why it matters: This conflict directly affects the structural connection between the new and existing footings. A #6 bar has significantly greater cross-sectional area (0.44 sq in) compared to a #4 bar (0.20 sq in), more than double the capacity. Using the wrong bar size could result in either an under-designed connection or unnecessary material and...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct rebar size for the dowels connecting new footings to existing footings. The Foundation Plan dowel notes specify #6 bars ((6)#6 at the F3.4 location and (3)#6 at the F1.6 location), while the Foundation Schedule lists #4 bars for the corresponding footings ((6)#4 for F3.4 and (3)#4 for F1.6). Detail 13/S2.0 confirms...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct rebar size for the dowels connecting new footings to existing footings. The Foundation Plan dowel notes specify #6 bars ((6)#6 at the F3.4 location and (3)#6 at the F1.6 location), while the Foundation Schedule lists #4 bars for the corresponding footings ((6)#4 for...

Summary: The existing balcony section on sheet A-5 labels the built-up beam at the main support line as '3-2x6' (three 2x6 members). However, the second floor framing plan on sheet S2 repeatedly labels the same existing beam as '(E) (3) 2x8 TO REMAIN' (three 2x8 members). This is the same structural element — the existing built-up beam that supports the...

Why it matters: A 2x6 has a nominal depth of 5.5 inches while a 2x8 has a nominal depth of 7.25 inches. This difference significantly affects the beam's section modulus and load-carrying capacity. Since the structural repair scope on S2 relies on the existing beam remaining in place ('TO REMAIN'), the actual size directly impacts whether the beam is adequate...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the actual size of the existing built-up beam supporting the balcony joists. Sheet A-5 Existing Balcony Section labels it as 3-2x6 while sheet S2 Second Floor Framing Plan labels it as (E)(3) 2x8 TO REMAIN. Please confirm the correct member size and update the affected drawing(s) accordingly. If the beam is 3-2x6, confirm whether...

RFI draft: Please clarify the actual size of the existing built-up beam supporting the balcony joists. Sheet A-5 Existing Balcony Section labels it as 3-2x6 while sheet S2 Second Floor Framing Plan labels it as (E)(3) 2x8 TO REMAIN. Please confirm the correct member size and update the affected drawing(s)...

Summary: The Hold-Down Schedule on the drawing specifies H12 (SIMPSON 1'Ø - WSWH-AB1X##) with a minimum embed depth of 11' and H13 (SIMPSON 1'Ø - WSWH-AB1X## - HIGH STRENGTH) with a minimum embed depth of 18'. However, per the Simpson Strong-Wall specification ESR-2652 Table 1, the WSWH anchor bolt embedment lengths (lₑ) are 15½' for WSWH12 panels, 21½'...

Why it matters: Inadequate anchor bolt embedment could compromise the anchorage capacity of the Simpson Strong-Wall panels, which are critical lateral force resisting elements. If anchors are installed to only 11' or 18' depth as shown, the panels may not achieve their required allowable shear and overturning resistance. This directly affects the seismic...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer revise the Hold-Down Schedule to specify minimum embed depths consistent with the Simpson Strong-Wall specification ESR-2652 Table 1: 21½' for WSWH18 anchor bolts (WSWH-AB1x30) and 27½' for WSWH24 anchor bolts (WSWH-AB1x36). Clarify whether the current 11' and 18' values were intended to represent concrete edge...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer revise the Hold-Down Schedule to specify minimum embed depths consistent with the Simpson Strong-Wall specification ESR-2652 Table 1: 21½' for WSWH18 anchor bolts (WSWH-AB1x30) and 27½' for WSWH24 anchor bolts (WSWH-AB1x36). Clarify whether the current 11' and 18'...

Summary: Foundation Detail 1 and Typical Sill Plate Anchorage (Detail 3) specify 5/8' diameter anchor bolts for sill plate connections, and Foundation Detail 2 specifies 1/2' diameter anchor bolts. The specification requires sill bolts to be 3/4' diameter. All three details directly contradict this requirement, resulting in undersized anchor bolts at...

Why it matters: Undersized anchor bolts reduce the capacity of the sill plate anchorage to resist lateral (seismic and wind) and uplift forces. Given the project is in Seismic Design Category E with Sds = 1.668g, this is a critical structural deficiency that would likely be flagged during plan review and special inspection. If built as detailed, the...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer to confirm the required sill bolt diameter for all foundation details. The specification requires 3/4' diameter sill bolts embedded 7' into concrete. Details 1, 2, and 3 on sheet S2.0 show 5/8' and 1/2' diameter bolts. Please clarify which diameter is correct and revise drawings or specification accordingly.

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer to confirm the required sill bolt diameter for all foundation details. The specification requires 3/4' diameter sill bolts embedded 7' into concrete. Details 1, 2, and 3 on sheet S2.0 show 5/8' and 1/2' diameter bolts. Please clarify which diameter is correct and...

Summary: The drawing diaphragm schedule shows Mark A diaphragm nailing as '10d @6\'/6\'/12\''. The specification states diaphragm sheathing fastener spacing is '4 INCHES OR LESS ON CENTER'. The drawing’s 6' spacing directly contradicts the specification requirement.

Why it matters: If constructed per the drawing schedule, the diaphragm fastening may not meet the project’s specified sheathing fastener spacing, creating a compliance risk for special inspection and seismic force-resisting system installation.

Suggested next step: Confirm which requirement governs diaphragm sheathing fastening: revise the diaphragm schedule nailing to comply with the specified '4 INCHES OR LESS ON CENTER', or revise the specification/special inspection statement if 6' edge/boundary nailing is intended.

RFI draft: Confirm which requirement governs diaphragm sheathing fastening: revise the diaphragm schedule nailing to comply with the specified '4 INCHES OR LESS ON CENTER', or revise the specification/special inspection statement if 6' edge/boundary nailing is intended.

Summary: The specifications state the sheathing fastener spacing for the seismic wood system (shear walls, shear panels, and diaphragm) is 4 inches o.c. or less. On this sheet, the typical shear wall detail calls out field nailing at 12' o.c., and the shearwall corner/intersection details call out wall sheathing nails at 6' o.c., which contradicts the...

Why it matters: If constructed per the shown 6' and 12' spacing where 4' max is required, the lateral system capacity may be reduced and special inspection scope/trigger criteria may be incorrectly applied, creating permitting and construction compliance risk.

Suggested next step: Confirm the required sheathing nailing spacing for wood shear walls/diaphragms (edge and field, as applicable). If 4' o.c. max is required, revise these details to match or clarify that these 6'/12' nailing notes apply only to non-SFRS sheathing locations.

RFI draft: Confirm the required sheathing nailing spacing for wood shear walls/diaphragms (edge and field, as applicable). If 4' o.c. max is required, revise these details to match or clarify that these 6'/12' nailing notes apply only to non-SFRS sheathing locations.

Summary: The drawing includes a note stating that all walls are considered non-shear walls. The project design criteria, however, identifies the seismic force-resisting system as light-frame wood walls sheathed with wood structural panels, which implies the lateral system relies on wood wall elements. These statements conflict and leave the intended...

Why it matters: If the project basis assumes a wood wall seismic force-resisting system but the drawings disclaim all walls as non-shear, it can lead to incorrect construction scope and missed lateral requirements, impacting life safety and plan review approval.

Suggested next step: Clarify whether any walls are intended to act as part of the seismic force-resisting system. If yes, revise the general note and provide designated shear wall/braced wall panel requirements and associated detailing; if no, provide the alternate lateral force-resisting system and supporting details.

RFI draft: Clarify whether any walls are intended to act as part of the seismic force-resisting system. If yes, revise the general note and provide designated shear wall/braced wall panel requirements and associated detailing; if no, provide the alternate lateral force-resisting system and supporting details.