Plan Review: 75 Issues Found

Summary: The framing plan for the 'OPT. M.S.D. @ COVERED PATIO' specifies an 'H7: 8 3/4" X 12" GLB' beam supported by an 'H8: 6X6' post. The connection note explicitly requires 'POST WIDTH TO MEET OR EXCEED BEAM WIDTH' and specifies a face-mounted 'HUC HANGER'. However, per CBC Section 2304.2 (which requires member sizing based on actual dimensions), a nominal 6x6 post has an actual width of 5.5 inches....

Why it matters: This is an unconstructible condition that directly violates CBC Section 1604.2, which requires structural parts to be designed and constructed to safely support factored loads. Because the hanger cannot be properly fastened to the supporting post, there is no valid load path to transfer the beam'...

Suggested next step: Please revise the post specification for H8. To properly support the 8 3/4" wide H7 glulam beam and allow installation of the HUC hanger, the post must be revised to an 8x8 or a custom column with a minimum actual width of 8 3/4 inches, satisfying the drawing's own requirement...

RFI draft: Please revise the post specification for H8. To properly support the 8 3/4" wide H7 glulam beam and allow installation of the HUC hanger, the post must be revised to an 8x8 or a custom column with a minimum actual width of 8 3/4 inches, satisfying...

Summary: The typical shearwall details on SN.2 explicitly state that edge nailing (EN) and framing attachments (sole plate to rim, rim to top plate) are to be installed per the Shearwall Schedule. However, the Shearwall Schedule provided on S1.1 completely lacks columns or notes for edge nailing spacing/sizing, top plate connections, and sole plate to rim attachments. It only lists sill plate sizes and ...

Why it matters: Without edge nailing requirements (EN) and plate-to-rim shear transfer connections, the contractor does not have the necessary specifications to construct the shearwalls to meet the intended lateral load design. This missing cross-referenced information leaves the structural package incomplete.

Suggested next step: Please provide a complete Shearwall Schedule that includes the required panel edge nailing (EN) spacing, nail size, and the top/sole plate shear transfer connections as explicitly referenced by the typical shearwall details on SN.2.

RFI draft: Please provide a complete Shearwall Schedule that includes the required panel edge nailing (EN) spacing, nail size, and the top/sole plate shear transfer connections as explicitly referenced by the typical shearwall details on SN.2.

Summary: The Foundation (S1.1A) and 2nd Floor Framing (S1.2A) plans detail an 'ESP BEDRM' wing (Grids P7-P8) with a 6'-4" Type 12 top shearwall. However, the Roof Framing plan (S1.6) details a different building section ('PRIMARY BATH', Grids P1-P4) with a 7'-0" Type 3 top shearwall. If S1.6 is intended to stack over the S1.1A/S1.2A wing for the Contemporary elevation, the shearwall lengths (7'-0" vs 6'...

Why it matters: Because the provided Roof Framing plan covers a different section of the building than the Foundation and 2nd Floor Framing plans, a complete vertical load path cannot be verified. If they are intended to represent the same stacked footprint, the conflicting shearwall lengths and misaligned holdo...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the Roof Framing plan (S1.6) is intended to stack over the ESP wing shown on S1.1A and S1.2A. If so, resolve the conflicting 7'-0" vs 6'-4" shearwall lengths on the top exterior wall. If not, provide the missing Level 2 Roof plan for the ESP wing and the Foun...

RFI draft: Please clarify if the Roof Framing plan (S1.6) is intended to stack over the ESP wing shown on S1.1A and S1.2A. If so, resolve the conflicting 7'-0" vs 6'-4" shearwall lengths on the top exterior wall. If not, provide the missing Level 2 Roof plan...

Summary: The framing plans for the covered patio feature a note for the HUC hanger connection stating 'POST WIDTH TO MEET OR EXCEED BEAM WIDTH'. However, the plans specify a beam (H7) that is 8 3/4" wide connecting to a post (H8 or Keynote 9A) that is nominally 6x6 (5.5" actual width).

Why it matters: An 8 3/4" wide glulam beam cannot be fully supported by a 5.5" wide 6x6 post. This violates the explicitly stated framing requirement on the sheet and exceeds the physical structural geometry of the specified hanger and post assembly, making it unbuildable as drawn.

Suggested next step: Please resolve the contradiction between the 8 3/4" GLB beam width and the 6x6 post width at the HUC hanger connection. Should the supporting post size be increased or the beam width reduced to comply with the requirement that the post width meet or exceed the beam width?

RFI draft: Please resolve the contradiction between the 8 3/4" GLB beam width and the 6x6 post width at the HUC hanger connection. Should the supporting post size be increased or the beam width reduced to comply with the requirement that the post width meet ...

Summary: On S3.2, the 12'-0" shearwall on the right exterior wall starts directly at the top-right corner. Its lower holdown post is keynote 7D (located 12'-0" from the corner), which explicitly requires alignment with a holdown strap from above. However, the roof framing plan (S3.3) shows a 10'-0" shearwall starting at the same corner, with holdowns located at the corner and 10' down. There is no holdo...

Why it matters: A discontinuous load path in the lateral force-resisting system will result if the roof holdown straps do not physically align with the holdown posts and foundation anchors below. This creates a critical vulnerability in the structural integrity of the shearwall system.

Suggested next step: Please review the shearwall layouts on the right exterior wall between S3.2 and S3.3. Update the shearwall lengths and locations to ensure a continuous holdown strap and post load path from the roof to the foundation.

RFI draft: Please review the shearwall layouts on the right exterior wall between S3.2 and S3.3. Update the shearwall lengths and locations to ensure a continuous holdown strap and post load path from the roof to the foundation.

Summary: Drawing Keynote 12 specifies attaching a 2x6 deck ledger using '(2) ROWS 16d @ 6" OC STAGGERED OR (4) 16d PER STUD'. The specification requires the project to conform to the 2025 CBC (Section 1.1). According to the CBC and standard construction practice, deck ledgers must be positively anchored with lag screws or machine bolts. Nailing a deck ledger is strictly prohibited because nails are susc...

Why it matters: Using nails for a primary deck ledger connection is a severe life-safety hazard and a direct violation of modern building codes. This detail will fail framing inspections and creates a high-liability risk if built as drawn.

Suggested next step: Please revise Keynote 12 to specify a compliant deck ledger connection utilizing lag screws or machine bolts in accordance with 2025 CBC requirements.

RFI draft: Please revise Keynote 12 to specify a compliant deck ledger connection utilizing lag screws or machine bolts in accordance with 2025 CBC requirements.

Summary: The Foundation Notes specify that the 'EXTERIOR POST-TENSION CONCRETE' at the garage shall slope at a minimum of 1/8" per 1'-0". A slope of 1/8" per foot equates to approximately 1.04%. However, CBC Section 1804.4 requires that impervious surfaces within 10 feet of the building foundation be sloped away from the building at not less than 2%. The specified 1/8" per foot slope falls short of this...

Why it matters: Insufficient slope on exterior concrete flatwork adjacent to the foundation impedes proper surface water drainage. This can lead to water ponding, soil saturation, and potential water infiltration into the foundation system, which may cause long-term differential settlement and failure during sit...

Suggested next step: Please revise the minimum slope for the exterior post-tension concrete at the garage to be at least 1/4" per 1'-0" (approximately 2.08%) to comply with the 2% minimum slope requirement of CBC Section 1804.4.

RFI draft: Please revise the minimum slope for the exterior post-tension concrete at the garage to be at least 1/4" per 1'-0" (approximately 2.08%) to comply with the 2% minimum slope requirement of CBC Section 1804.4.

Summary: The structural plans specify special loads for the truss manufacturer as "350 PLF POINT LOAD" and "650 PLF POINT LOAD". "PLF" (Pounds per Linear Foot) is a unit of measurement for a uniformly distributed line load, whereas a "POINT LOAD" refers to a concentrated force applied at a specific location. Combining these mutually exclusive terms creates a direct physical and dimensional contradiction...

Why it matters: Under CBC Sections 1603.1 and 1603.1.8, design loads and special loads must be accurately and clearly specified on the construction documents. The contradictory specification makes it impossible for the truss manufacturer to determine whether the load is a concentrated point load (e.g., 350 lbs) ...

Suggested next step: Clarify whether the loads at the ends of the specified trusses are concentrated point loads (measured in lbs) or uniformly distributed loads (measured in plf), and update the drawing notes to use the correct load terminology and units.

RFI draft: Clarify whether the loads at the ends of the specified trusses are concentrated point loads (measured in lbs) or uniformly distributed loads (measured in plf), and update the drawing notes to use the correct load terminology and units.

Summary: The drawing shows a Seismic Response Coefficient CS = 0.173 and a Design Base Shear = 0.121W. Per ASCE 7-22 Section 12.8.1 (referenced by CBC Section 1613.1), V = CsW. If CS = 0.173, then the design base shear should be 0.173W, not 0.121W. The ratio 0.121/0.173 ≈ 0.70, which suggests a possible mixing of strength-level and allowable-stress-design-level parameters. At least one of these two requ...

Why it matters: This discrepancy could lead to plan check rejection and permitting delays. More critically, if the correct design base shear is 0.173W but the structure was designed for only 0.121W, all lateral force-resisting elements (shearwalls, holdowns, connections, diaphragms) could be under-designed by ap...

Suggested next step: Clarify the correct seismic response coefficient CS and design base shear V for the project. If the fundamental period results in a period-dependent CS lower than the SDS/(R/Ie) upper bound of 0.173, update the CS value on the drawings to reflect the actual coefficient used in...

RFI draft: Clarify the correct seismic response coefficient CS and design base shear V for the project. If the fundamental period results in a period-dependent CS lower than the SDS/(R/Ie) upper bound of 0.173, update the CS value on the drawings to reflect ...

Summary: The California Building Code requires studs to have full bearing on a bottom plate or sill that is at least a 2-inch nominal (actual 1 1/2-inch) thickness. However, the wood specifications table for plates and sills on the drawings specifies the use of 1 1/8" plywood for curved sole and sill plates, which is thinner than the 1 1/2-inch actual minimum required by code.

Why it matters: Using bottom plates that are thinner than the code-mandated minimum compromises the structural integrity of the wall assembly. It reduces the pull-out capacity of fasteners, diminishes load distribution from the studs to the foundation or floor system, and will likely result in a rejected framing...

Suggested next step: Please revise the framing specifications for curved plates to require solid sawn lumber or multiple layers of plywood that achieve a combined actual thickness of at least 1 1/2 inches, or provide an engineered design alternative that complies with CBC Section 2304.3.1.

RFI draft: Please revise the framing specifications for curved plates to require solid sawn lumber or multiple layers of plywood that achieve a combined actual thickness of at least 1 1/2 inches, or provide an engineered design alternative that complies with...

Summary: Note 3.6 under '6.7 PRE-MANUFACTURED ROOF TRUSS NOTES' states that trusses with an FAU opening can be designed with a 250 lb point load applied to the bottom chord. However, CBC Table 1607.1 requires a minimum concentrated live load of 300 lbs for 'Catwalks for maintenance and service access'. An FAU platform functions as a walkway/platform for personnel to access and service mechanical equipme...

Why it matters: Failing to design truss bottom chords for the code-mandated 300 lb concentrated maintenance load can result in structural overstress when technicians traverse the platform with tools and heavy equipment to service the Forced Air Unit. This poses a safety hazard and risks localized damage to the t...

Suggested next step: Please revise Roof Truss Note 3.6 to require a minimum 300# point load at FAU platforms to comply with the concentrated live load requirements for maintenance and service access per CBC Table 1607.1.

RFI draft: Please revise Roof Truss Note 3.6 to require a minimum 300# point load at FAU platforms to comply with the concentrated live load requirements for maintenance and service access per CBC Table 1607.1.

Summary: The 'STRINGER @ SLAB' detail specifies attaching the 2X PT stair sill plate to the concrete slab using '(3) POWDER DRIVEN NAILS'. According to CBC 1901.3.1, power-actuated fasteners are only permitted in seismic shear for interior non-bearing non-shear wall partitions and certain exempt components. A stair stringer is a structural egress component that carries live loads, so it does not meet th...

Why it matters: Relying on powder-driven nails for stair foundation anchorage compromises the structural integrity of the egress path during seismic events. These fasteners lack sufficient reliable tension and shear capacity for structural life-safety applications in seismic zones, and the installation will like...

Suggested next step: Please revise the 'STRINGER @ SLAB' detail to specify an approved mechanical expansion anchor or adhesive anchor instead of powder-driven nails for securing the stair sill plate to the slab.

RFI draft: Please revise the 'STRINGER @ SLAB' detail to specify an approved mechanical expansion anchor or adhesive anchor instead of powder-driven nails for securing the stair sill plate to the slab.

Summary: The framing plan at the P1/P3 grid intersection indicates a Type 3 shearwall with a "SHARED 3" holdown and a "2B" holdown at the corner. The Holdown Schedule strictly requires a minimum "4X & 2X" post for a Type 3 holdown to accommodate three CS16 tension straps. However, Keynote 5 points directly to this corner post, specifying a "DOUBLE 2X #2 DF POST". A Double 2X post provides significantly ...

Why it matters: Providing an undersized post at a major shearwall corner violates structural strength requirements. The specified Double 2X post is physically too small to accommodate the required strapping for both a Type 3 and Type 2B holdown, leading to insufficient tension capacity, framing inspection failur...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required post size at the grid P1/P3 corner. Should Keynote 5 be revised at this location to specify a post that meets or exceeds the minimum "4X & 2X" requirement for the Holdown Type 3 and 2B combination?

RFI draft: Please clarify the required post size at the grid P1/P3 corner. Should Keynote 5 be revised at this location to specify a post that meets or exceeds the minimum "4X & 2X" requirement for the Holdown Type 3 and 2B combination?

Summary: Detail 152 shows a continuous sloped transition connecting a lower tie footing to a higher concrete slab, with a slope triangle indicating a 1:3 slope (33.3%). California Building Code Section 1809.3 mandates that the top surface of footings must be level, and any necessary elevation changes must be achieved by stepping the footing. Additionally, the code limits the maximum allowable slope for ...

Why it matters: Constructing footings with steep continuous slopes instead of proper level steps can result in sliding, uneven load distribution, and differential settlement. This will lead to failed foundation inspections and require costly corrective action before vertical construction can proceed.

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail 152 to replace the 1:3 sloped transition with a properly stepped footing. Ensure all footing top surfaces are shown as level, and any slope on the bottom surface is limited to a maximum of 1:10, in accordance with CBC Section 1809.3.

RFI draft: Please revise Detail 152 to replace the 1:3 sloped transition with a properly stepped footing. Ensure all footing top surfaces are shown as level, and any slope on the bottom surface is limited to a maximum of 1:10, in accordance with CBC Section ...

Summary: The Shearwall Schedule on S1.1 specifies 1/2" diameter anchor bolts at 12" OC for SW Type 12 and at 10" OC for SW Type 19. However, the Anchor Bolt Substitution Table in Detail GG on SN.3 lists 1/2" diameter bolts at 14" OC for SW Type 12 and 12" OC for SW Type 19. The S1.1 Shearwall Schedule directly references Detail GG/SN.3 for installation requirements, yet the baseline 1/2" anchor bolt spa...

Why it matters: The S1.1 schedule provides tighter (more conservative) spacings than the SN.3 substitution table. If a contractor follows the SN.3 table for the baseline 1/2" bolt spacing, they would install anchors at a wider spacing than the project engineer intended, potentially under-anchoring the shear wall...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer clarify the correct 1/2" anchor bolt spacing for Shearwall Types 12 and 19. Specifically, confirm whether the S1.1 Shearwall Schedule spacings (12" OC for Type 12 and 10" OC for Type 19) or the SN.3 Detail GG Anchor Bolt Substitution Table spaci...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer clarify the correct 1/2" anchor bolt spacing for Shearwall Types 12 and 19. Specifically, confirm whether the S1.1 Shearwall Schedule spacings (12" OC for Type 12 and 10" OC for Type 19) or the SN.3 Detail GG Anchor...