Plan Review: 72 Issues Found

Summary: 13 index entries | 8 perfect matches | 5 mismatched | 0 missing Mismatched (5): S2.01: Expected: SITE BUILT FOUNDATION PLANS (S2.01) | Actual: SITE BUILT ANCHORAGE PLANS (S2.01)(p3) S2.11: Expected: SITE BUILT LEVEL ONE FRAMING PLANS (S2.11) | Actual: SITE BUILT LEVEL 01 FRAMING PLANS (S2.11)(p4) S2.21: Expected: SITE BUILT LEVEL TWO DECK PLAN (S2.21) | Actual: LEVEL...

Why it matters: Addressing this before construction prevents rework and supports code compliance.

Suggested next step: Review drawings and specifications to resolve before construction.

RFI draft: Please clarify: Drawing Index Audit: 0 missing, 5 mismatched out of 13 sheets

Summary: The foundation plans for both the Common Area Building (Detail 2/S2.00) and the Modular Units (Plan 1/S2.00) repeatedly specify a "3" SLAB ON GRADE." Section 1907.1 of the 2022 California Building Code requires that the thickness of concrete floor slabs supported directly on the ground shall be not less than 3½ inches (89 mm). The specified 3-inch thickness is ½ inch less than the code-mandated...

Why it matters: This deficiency affects every slab-on-grade shown on this sheet, spanning all Common Area Buildings and all Modular Units. A slab poured at 3 inches would fail the building department foundation inspection and require demolition and replacement, causing significant construction delays and cost ov...

Suggested next step: Request the Structural Engineer of Record to revise the slab-on-grade thickness from 3" to a minimum of 3½" in accordance with CBC Section 1907.1 on all foundation plans, or to provide an engineering justification and alternative code path if a thinner slab is intended.

RFI draft: Request the Structural Engineer of Record to revise the slab-on-grade thickness from 3" to a minimum of 3½" in accordance with CBC Section 1907.1 on all foundation plans, or to provide an engineering justification and alternative code path if a th...

Summary: Note 7 provides an 'SDS SCREW OPTION AT TOP PLATE CONNECTION' for 2x4 or 2-2x4 wall studs. In light-frame construction, the connection between the top plate and wall studs must resist uplift forces from the roof or floor above. Driving a screw vertically through the top plate into the stud places the fastener in the end grain of the stud. When resisting uplift, this screw is loaded in withdrawa...

Why it matters: Because wood screws have zero calculated capacity (Ceg=0.0) when loaded in withdrawal from end grain, this connection will fail to provide a continuous load path for uplift forces. This could lead to catastrophic roof or wall detachment during high wind or seismic events.

Suggested next step: Remove the SDS screw option for top plate to stud connections, or clarify that this screw is only for lateral shear transfer and specify an approved metal connector (e.g., hurricane tie or strap) to resist all uplift forces.

RFI draft: Remove the SDS screw option for top plate to stud connections, or clarify that this screw is only for lateral shear transfer and specify an approved metal connector (e.g., hurricane tie or strap) to resist all uplift forces.

Summary: Detail 4 'CUSTOM HOLD-DOWN STRAP DETAIL' specifies '5/16 "Ø HOLE, TYP.' in a '¼" THICK STL. PLATE'. However, the Hold-Down Schedule for HD1 specifies the use of '(20) 0.148"Ø x 2-1/2" NAILS'. The 5/16" hole diameter (0.3125") is roughly equal to or larger than the standard head diameter of a 0.148" shank nail. Consequently, the nail heads will lack sufficient bearing area on the steel plate and...

Why it matters: Using nails in oversized holes violates NDS 11.3.1, which mandates that the actual load applied to a connection shall not exceed the adjusted design values (including W'H, head pull-through). With inadequate head bearing, the W'H capacity effectively becomes zero. It also violates NDS 11.2.3, whi...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct hole diameter, fastener type, and strap width for the HD1 custom hold-down strap. If 0.148" nails are intended, revise the hole diameter in Detail 4 to provide adequate nail head bearing. If 5/16" holes are required, specify compatible larger fastene...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct hole diameter, fastener type, and strap width for the HD1 custom hold-down strap. If 0.148" nails are intended, revise the hole diameter in Detail 4 to provide adequate nail head bearing. If 5/16" holes are required, spe...

Summary: The 'SITE-BUILT PLANS LEGEND:' on S2.11 directs the reader to the hold-down schedule on S6.13. However, there is a contradiction regarding the custom hold-down strap (HD1) on S6.13. The schedule specifies a '3" CUSTOM HOLD-DOWN STRAP' requiring '(20) 0.148"Ø x 2-1/2" NAILS', while the 'CUSTOM HOLD-DOWN STRAP DETAIL' (Detail 4/S6.13) shows a plate width of '4½"' with '5/16 "Ø HOLE, TYP.'.

Why it matters: There are two major structural conflicts: 1) The width of the steel plate differs (3" vs 4 1/2"), which affects procurement and fit. 2) The specified 0.148" diameter framing nails are incompatible with the 5/16" (0.3125") pre-drilled holes shown in the detail, as the nail heads will likely pull t...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct width for the HD1 Custom Hold-Down Strap (3" per schedule or 4 1/2" per Detail 4) and provide the correct fastener specifications, as 0.148" nails cannot be used in 5/16" holes.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct width for the HD1 Custom Hold-Down Strap (3" per schedule or 4 1/2" per Detail 4) and provide the correct fastener specifications, as 0.148" nails cannot be used in 5/16" holes.

Summary: Elevation A on S6.21 (Detail 9) connects the Splice Plate to the "CUSTOM HOLD-DOWN STRAP, PER DET. 4/S6.13". Detail 16/S6.21 specifies this Splice Plate has a capacity of 9.6k using 24 screws. However, Detail 4/S6.13 (drawn at 4 1/2" wide) instructs to "SEE HOLD-DOWN SCHEDULE 1/S6.13 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION". That schedule lists the only custom strap (HD1) as being a "3" CUSTOM HOLD-DOWN STR...

Why it matters: There are three uncoordinated definitions for the same hold-down strap: a 3" width per schedule, a 4 1/2" width per detail, and an implicit requirement to match a 6" wide mating splice plate. More critically, mating a 9.6k capacity splice connection to a 3.6k capacity strap creates a severe struc...

Suggested next step: Please resolve the discrepancies in the Custom Hold-Down Strap dimensions (3" in S6.13 Schedule 1 vs. 4 1/2" in S6.13 Detail 4 vs. 6" Splice Plate in S6.21 Detail 16). Additionally, clarify the required structural capacity, as the scheduled 3.6k strap capacity drastically conf...

RFI draft: Please resolve the discrepancies in the Custom Hold-Down Strap dimensions (3" in S6.13 Schedule 1 vs. 4 1/2" in S6.13 Detail 4 vs. 6" Splice Plate in S6.21 Detail 16). Additionally, clarify the required structural capacity, as the scheduled 3.6k s...

Summary: The foundation plans on sheets S2.00 and S2.01 consistently call out a '3" SLAB ON GRADE' throughout all modular units and common area buildings. However, Detail 5/S5.10 ('TYP. SLAB ON GRADE JOINTS') on sheet S5.10 depicts the typical slab on grade as 5" thick at both the control joint and construction joint sections. This is a direct dimensional contradiction for the slab on grade thickness.

Why it matters: This discrepancy impacts concrete volume calculations, reinforcement placement depth (reinforcement is noted as centered in slab per Detail 4/S5.10), structural capacity, and formwork design. A 3" slab on grade is unusually thin for building construction, while 5" is a more standard thickness. Co...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct slab on grade thickness. The plans on S2.00 and S2.01 specify 3" while the typical slab joint detail 5/S5.10 shows 5". Confirm the intended thickness and revise conflicting documents accordingly.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct slab on grade thickness. The plans on S2.00 and S2.01 specify 3" while the typical slab joint detail 5/S5.10 shows 5". Confirm the intended thickness and revise conflicting documents accordingly.

Summary: The Hold-Down Schedule on drawing S6.13 specifies '16d SINKERS' as fasteners for metal strap connectors: (16) 16d sinkers for the S1 hold-down (CS20 strap) and (64) 16d sinkers for the S2 hold-down (MSTC52 OR CMST14x78 straps). The structural notes on S1.00, Section 10.K, explicitly state that 'SINKERS SHALL NOT BE USED WITH METAL CONNECTORS.' CS20, MSTC52, and CMST14x78 are all Simpson metal s...

Why it matters: Sinker nails have a smaller diameter and shorter length than common or box nails of the same penny weight, resulting in reduced withdrawal and shear capacity at metal connector interfaces. Using sinkers with hold-down straps that resist seismic overturning forces could result in under-capacity co...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer clarify the correct fastener type for the S1 and S2 hold-down straps in the Hold-Down Schedule. Per structural note 10.K on S1.00, sinkers shall not be used with metal connectors. Please confirm whether 16d common nails or another approved faste...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer clarify the correct fastener type for the S1 and S2 hold-down straps in the Hold-Down Schedule. Per structural note 10.K on S1.00, sinkers shall not be used with metal connectors. Please confirm whether 16d common n...

Summary: Detail 11 indicates an allowable hole zone bounded by a top and bottom edge distance of '1/3" DEPTH' and '⅓" DEPTH' (one-third of an inch). This is a drafting error that incorrectly uses the inch (") symbol; the intent is '1/3 DEPTH' (one-third of the member's depth). Providing only a 1/3-inch edge distance for bored holes violates the minimum 2-inch edge distance required by the building code ...

Why it matters: If joists are drilled with only a 1/3-inch edge margin as detailed, the shear and bending capacity of the members will be severely compromised, leading to structural failure and rejection during framing inspections.

Suggested next step: Please confirm that the allowed hole zone edge distance in Detail 11 should be '1/3 DEPTH' (one-third of the member's depth) rather than '1/3" DEPTH' (one-third of an inch), to comply with building code minimum edge distance requirements.

RFI draft: Please confirm that the allowed hole zone edge distance in Detail 11 should be '1/3 DEPTH' (one-third of the member's depth) rather than '1/3" DEPTH' (one-third of an inch), to comply with building code minimum edge distance requirements.

Summary: Drawing S1.00 structural notes specify Hem-Fir for all sawn framing lumber (Note 9.B: posts and beams as Hem-Fir #1; Note 9.C: studs, plates, etc. as Hem-Fir #2 or better). However, every structural calculation in the specification for sawn lumber members uses Douglas Fir-Larch No.2, which has significantly higher allowable design values (e.g., Fb = 900 psi, Fv = 180 psi, E = 1,600 ksi, Emin = ...

Why it matters: The 3-2x4 trimmer studs at the LVL header have a stress ratio of 0.9662 with Douglas Fir-Larch, critically relying on E_min = 580 ksi for the column stability factor CP = 0.286. Hem-Fir's substantially lower E_min would reduce FcE and CP, causing the axial stress ratio to exceed 1.0 and the membe...

Suggested next step: Request clarification on the intended wood species for all sawn lumber framing. The structural notes specify Hem-Fir (#1 for posts/beams, #2 for studs/plates) but all structural calculations use Douglas Fir-Larch No.2 with higher allowable stresses. Please confirm the correct ...

RFI draft: Request clarification on the intended wood species for all sawn lumber framing. The structural notes specify Hem-Fir (#1 for posts/beams, #2 for studs/plates) but all structural calculations use Douglas Fir-Larch No.2 with higher allowable stresse...

Summary: The structural drawing notes on sheet S1.00 dictate that the design is based on the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) and the 2021 NDS. However, the code references on sheet S2.11 list superseded codes: the 2019 CBC, 2018 IBC, and 2018 NDS.

Why it matters: Referencing outdated and conflicting building codes across different drawing sheets can cause confusion during construction and result in plan check rejection. Design capacities, load combinations, and requirements may differ between the 2018/2019 and 2021/2022 editions.

Suggested next step: Please clarify which edition of the California Building Code and NDS governs this project. Update the drawing notes across all sheets so they consistently reference the same governing codes.

RFI draft: Please clarify which edition of the California Building Code and NDS governs this project. Update the drawing notes across all sheets so they consistently reference the same governing codes.

Summary: The drawing specifies that the site-built deck is structurally tied to the modular units via "HORIZONTAL HD TIE ACROSS MOD WALL" and "HORIZONTAL HD TIE ACROSS EXT. WALL". However, the specification's "Buildings - Weight Summary" and "Base Shear Calculation" calculate the total building weight as W = 213.5 [K], which only accounts for the Roof (62.2 k) and 2nd Floor (151.3 k). The "Walkway & Sta...

Why it matters: Because the drawing details structural ties connecting the deck to the building, the building's lateral force-resisting system will experience the deck's seismic inertial forces. Omitting this deck mass (approximately 55 kips, resulting in a ~25% increase in total weight) from the base shear calc...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the site-built deck should be structurally separated from the modular units (e.g., using a slip joint) to avoid transferring seismic mass. If the deck must remain structurally tied to the modular units as shown, please revise the seismic calculations to inclu...

RFI draft: Please clarify if the site-built deck should be structurally separated from the modular units (e.g., using a slip joint) to avoid transferring seismic mass. If the deck must remain structurally tied to the modular units as shown, please revise the...

Summary: Detail 1/S6.12 notes that 2x mid-height blocking is required "WHERE STUD HEIGHT IS GREATER THAN 10 FT". However, the specification explicitly states that "2x4 studs are braced in weak-direction at mid-height, typical." Furthermore, the engineering calculation model for a typical 9 ft tall 2x4 interior stud specifically relies on an unbraced length in the weak axis (Luy) of 4.5 ft to satisfy buc...

Why it matters: If the drawing note is followed literally, a 9 ft tall 2x4 bearing wall will not receive mid-height blocking because its height is not "greater than 10 ft". This leaves the stud entirely unbraced in the weak axis over its full 9 ft length, which directly violates the structural design assumptions...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the 'greater than 10 ft' condition on Detail 1/S6.12 only applies to fireblocking, and add a definitive note confirming that all 2x4 bearing studs must have mid-height blocking regardless of overall height, per the structural calculations.

RFI draft: Please clarify if the 'greater than 10 ft' condition on Detail 1/S6.12 only applies to fireblocking, and add a definitive note confirming that all 2x4 bearing studs must have mid-height blocking regardless of overall height, per the structural cal...

Summary: The King Stud Schedule on S6.12 states that a 2x4 wall with a rough opening between 4'-0" and 10'-0" requires (2) 2x4 King Studs and (1) 2x4 Trimmer Stud. However, the structural calculations for the 8.0 ft LVL header explicitly require a "3-2x4 trimmer stud" AND a "3-2x4 king stud" at each end of the header. The typical framing schedule under-provides the required vertical supports.

Why it matters: If the contractor follows the typical schedule, the 1.75x14 LVL header will only be supported by 1 trimmer stud instead of the 3 required by calculations. This will lead to insufficient bearing area, localized crushing of the wood plate/trimmer, and potential failure of the header connection unde...

Suggested next step: Please add a specific callout or note to the drawings clarifying that the 8'-0" LVL header at level 1 requires (3) 2x4 trimmers and (3) 2x4 king studs at each end to match the structural calculations, superseding the typical King Stud Schedule.

RFI draft: Please add a specific callout or note to the drawings clarifying that the 8'-0" LVL header at level 1 requires (3) 2x4 trimmers and (3) 2x4 king studs at each end to match the structural calculations, superseding the typical King Stud Schedule.

Summary: The Hold-Down Schedule (1/S6.13) specifies HD1 as a "3" CUSTOM HOLD-DOWN STRAP" to be installed on "2-2x6 or 3-2x4" studs using "(20) 0.148"Ø x 2-1/2" NAILS". However, the Custom Hold-Down Strap Detail (4/S6.13) shows the strap as "4½"" wide with a "5/16 "Ø HOLE, TYP." in a "¼" THICK STL. PLATE". This creates two critical conflicts: 1. A 4.5" wide strap cannot be installed on a 2-2x6 stud bundl...

Why it matters: If fabricated per Detail 4, the 4.5" strap will not fit the 2-2x6 framing option allowed by the schedule, causing fasteners to miss the stud. Furthermore, using nails in 5/16" oversized holes provides virtually zero bearing area for the nail heads against the 1/4" steel plate. The strap will pull...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the Custom Hold-Down Strap (HD1) details. Provide a revised strap detail for a 3" width that fits 2-2x6 framing. Additionally, please update the fastener specification to utilize 1/4" screws (e.g., Simpson SDS) to match the 5/16" holes in the 1/4" plate, or redu...

RFI draft: Please clarify the Custom Hold-Down Strap (HD1) details. Provide a revised strap detail for a 3" width that fits 2-2x6 framing. Additionally, please update the fastener specification to utilize 1/4" screws (e.g., Simpson SDS) to match the 5/16" ho...