Plan Review: 279 Issues Found

Summary: 31 index entries | 21 perfect matches | 10 mismatched | 0 missing Mismatched (10): S1.4: Expected: Typ. Structural Details (S1.4) | Actual: TYP. STRUCTURAL DETAILS (S1.1)(p3) S2.2: Expected: OVERALL 2ND FLOOR FRAMING PLAN (S2.2) | Actual: OVERALL SECOND FLOOR FRAMING PLAN (S2.2)(p10) S2.2A: Expected: 2ND FLOOR FRAMING PLAN WEST WING (S2.2A) | Actual: SECOND FLOOR FRA...

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, 10 mismatched out of 31 sheets

Summary: 280 index entries | 60 perfect matches | 3 mismatched | 217 missing Mismatched (3): T.01C: Expected: SHEET INDEX (T.01C) | Actual: SHEET INDEX (T.01B)(p3) L0.0: Expected: COVER SHEET (L0.0) | Actual: COVER SHEET (T.00)(p1) A3.03: Expected: BUILDING SECTIONS (A3.03) | Actual: BUILDING SECTIONS (A3.01)(p43) Missing (217) — listed in drawing index but not found in the ...

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: 217 missing, 3 mismatched out of 280 sheets

Summary: Detail 12 (POST WITH MPBZ TO PAD FDN) specifies a 12" pier width ("D") with a 4" minimum side cover for a 4x4 post. This leaves a 4" out-to-out dimension for the ties. The detail calls for #4 ties, which results in a 3" inside dimension for the tie cage. The detail also requires (8) #5 vertical bars. Evenly distributing three #5 bars per face within a 3" inner dimension results in a clear spaci...

Why it matters: Inadequate clear spacing between longitudinal bars will prevent proper concrete flow and aggregate consolidation during placement. This will lead to voids and honeycombing within the pier core, which severely compromises the structural integrity and moment-resisting capacity of the pedestal/pier.

Suggested next step: Please revise the pier dimensions, reinforcement size/quantity, or clear cover for the 4x4 post in Detail 12 to ensure the clear spacing between vertical bars meets the minimum 1.5 inches required by ACI 318-19 Section 25.2.3.

RFI draft: Please revise the pier dimensions, reinforcement size/quantity, or clear cover for the 4x4 post in Detail 12 to ensure the clear spacing between vertical bars meets the minimum 1.5 inches required by ACI 318-19 Section 25.2.3.

Summary: The Second Floor Framing Plan designates a 'SEISMIC SEPERATION' line. However, the plan clearly shows existing structural members, including the '(E) W12X45' steel beam and '(E) LFJ01' joists, spanning directly across this separation line without any structural break. According to ASCE 7-16 Section 12.12.3, portions of a structure must either be designed to act as an integral unit or be structu...

Why it matters: During a seismic event, portions of a building on either side of a seismic separation will move independently. If continuous structural beams and joists cross this joint without proper slip connections or physical gaps providing a distance sufficient to avoid damaging contact, the independent mov...

Suggested next step: Clarify the design intent for the 'SEISMIC SEPERATION'. If the building portions are intended to be structurally separated, provide specific details showing how the '(E) W12X45' and '(E) LFJ01' elements will be severed and supported at the joint, and specify the required separ...

RFI draft: Clarify the design intent for the 'SEISMIC SEPERATION'. If the building portions are intended to be structurally separated, provide specific details showing how the '(E) W12X45' and '(E) LFJ01' elements will be severed and supported at the joint, ...

Summary: The Diaphragm Schedule specifies that Diaphragm D4 consists of 3/4" CDX/OSB installed over 2x6 T&G decking, resulting in a total assembly thickness of 2.25" before reaching the framing. The schedule notes explicitly require "(3) 16d AT DIAPHRAGM BOUNDARIES" to transfer forces for this specific condition. However, Footnote 8 of the Shearwall Schedule strictly dictates that "16d TRANSFERS ARE NOT...

Why it matters: ASCE 7-16 Section 12.1.3 mandates a continuous load path with adequate strength and stiffness to transfer all seismic forces from their point of application to the final point of resistance. Specifying a diaphragm boundary transfer connection that is physically disallowed by the structural notes ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the approved boundary transfer connection detail for Diaphragm D4. The combined thickness of the 3/4" OSB and 2x6 T&G decking exceeds 2", and Shearwall Schedule Footnote 8 strictly prohibits 16d nail transfers through sheathing thicker than 3/4". Please provide ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the approved boundary transfer connection detail for Diaphragm D4. The combined thickness of the 3/4" OSB and 2x6 T&G decking exceeds 2", and Shearwall Schedule Footnote 8 strictly prohibits 16d nail transfers through sheathing thic...

Summary: The framing plan details a 9'-2" Type 4 shear wall. The plan explicitly calls out a '6x6 HDU11' holdown at the right boundary to resist seismic overturning uplift forces, but only specifies '4x6 CCQ' and '6x6 CCQ' column caps at the left boundary without any holdown. Section 12.1.3 requires a continuous load path to transfer all forces to the final point of resistance. Because seismic forces re...

Why it matters: The Type 4 shear wall has a high design capacity of 1020 plf. Without a holdown on both ends, the wall cannot resist overturning in one of the lateral loading directions. This will cause the shear wall to fail prematurely during a seismic event, violating the code's load path requirements and pos...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the boundary element detailing for the 9'-2" Type 4 shear wall. Provide an appropriate holdown callout (e.g., HDU11) at the left boundary (currently shown only with CCQ column caps) to ensure a continuous load path for reversing seismic overturning forces.

RFI draft: Please clarify the boundary element detailing for the 9'-2" Type 4 shear wall. Provide an appropriate holdown callout (e.g., HDU11) at the left boundary (currently shown only with CCQ column caps) to ensure a continuous load path for reversing sei...

Summary: Details 13 and 14 show cantilever framing terminating directly at the face of supporting members without a continuous backspan extending into the interior floor framing. Detail 13 specifically details a '6X CANTILEVER MONTEREY BALCONY FRAMING PER PLAN' connecting to a 'BEAM PER PLAN' using an 'HU68 HANGER UNO'. A face-mount hanger (HU68) is a shear-only connection that acts as a pin and provide...

Why it matters: A cantilevered beam relies entirely on bending moment transfer at its support to remain stable. Supporting a cantilever with a pinned connection (like a face-mount hanger) or abutting it directly to a rim board without a backspan creates an unstable structural mechanism. The cantilever will pivot...

Suggested next step: Revise Details 13 and 14 to provide a continuous load path for the cantilever moment. Either extend the 6X cantilever framing into the interior floor framing as a continuous backspan (typically 2x to 3x the cantilever length), or detail a specifically engineered rigid moment-r...

RFI draft: Revise Details 13 and 14 to provide a continuous load path for the cantilever moment. Either extend the 6X cantilever framing into the interior floor framing as a continuous backspan (typically 2x to 3x the cantilever length), or detail a specific...

Summary: The General Notes explicitly mandate compliance with the outdated 2019 California Building Code for critical building systems, including exterior walls (Chapter 14), roof assemblies (Chapter 15), and glass/glazing (Chapter 24). However, the project is subject to the current 2022 California Building Code.

Why it matters: Utilizing a superseded building code as the basis of design can lead to the installation of materials, structural systems, and life-safety assemblies that do not meet current legal standards. This will likely result in permitting rejections, inspection failures, and costly field modifications to ...

Suggested next step: Please update all references in the General Notes from the 2019 CBC to the current 2022 California Building Code. Confirm that all specified assemblies, materials, and structural details comply with the 2022 CBC requirements.

RFI draft: Please update all references in the General Notes from the 2019 CBC to the current 2022 California Building Code. Confirm that all specified assemblies, materials, and structural details comply with the 2022 CBC requirements.

Summary: The site occupancy and egress legend explicitly establishes that the maximum exit access travel distance for a sprinklered Group A occupancy is 250 feet, in accordance with CBC Table 1017.2. However, the egress plans definitively show paths of travel serving the A-2 (Assembly - Pool Deck) areas that exceed this maximum limit. Specifically, egress paths terminating at the public sidewalk are cal...

Why it matters: Exceeding the maximum allowed travel distance increases occupant evacuation times, posing a direct life-safety risk during emergencies. This violation will result in the rejection of the egress plan by the building plan checker or fire marshal. The egress paths must be redesigned, or additional e...

Suggested next step: The egress paths serving the A-2 Pool Deck areas are labeled with travel distances of 253' and 277', which exceed the 250' maximum established in the egress legend for Group A occupancies. Please revise the egress routing, add new exits, or provide an approved alternative mean...

RFI draft: The egress paths serving the A-2 Pool Deck areas are labeled with travel distances of 253' and 277', which exceed the 250' maximum established in the egress legend for Group A occupancies. Please revise the egress routing, add new exits, or provid...

Summary: CBC 1023.3 requires interior exit stairways to terminate at an exit discharge or public way, unless extended by a fire-barrier enclosed exit passageway. STAIR 2 is enclosed by 1-hour fire barriers (acting as an interior exit stairway), but its exterior (north) wall only provides a window (W104), not an egress door. The only egress door from the stairwell (116A) discharges directly into Corridor...

Why it matters: Discharging an interior exit stairway back into an occupied interior corridor instead of directly to the exterior or a protected exit passageway creates a severe life safety hazard. Occupants evacuating from upper floors would be forced to re-enter a potentially compromised floor to exit the buil...

Suggested next step: Please revise the ground floor plan to provide a direct exterior exit door from STAIR 2 in place of window W104, or provide a dedicated, fire-barrier enclosed exit passageway from STAIR 2 to the exterior in compliance with CBC 1023.3.1.

RFI draft: Please revise the ground floor plan to provide a direct exterior exit door from STAIR 2 in place of window W104, or provide a dedicated, fire-barrier enclosed exit passageway from STAIR 2 to the exterior in compliance with CBC 1023.3.1.

Summary: The project is a 12-story building, as indicated by the floor schedule on the drawings. According to CBC Section 713.4, shaft enclosures connecting four or more stories must have a minimum 2-hour fire-resistance rating. However, the drawings indicate that the main elevator (ELEV. 206) and stairwell (STAIR 1 203) are enclosed by 1-hour fire barriers/partitions, and the Symbol Legend provides no ...

Why it matters: Providing only a 1-hour fire-resistance rating for vertical shafts in a 12-story building is a major life safety violation that will result in failed building permits and severe danger to occupants by allowing fire and smoke to easily spread vertically. Upgrading to a 2-hour wall assembly typical...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the required fire-resistance rating for the elevator and stairwell shaft enclosures. Update the wall types to a minimum 2-hour fire-resistance rating per CBC 713.4, and add the corresponding 2-hour fire barrier/shaft wall assembly to the Symbol Legend.

RFI draft: Please confirm the required fire-resistance rating for the elevator and stairwell shaft enclosures. Update the wall types to a minimum 2-hour fire-resistance rating per CBC 713.4, and add the corresponding 2-hour fire barrier/shaft wall assembly t...

Summary: The drawing indicates a 12-story building based on the floor level list. According to CBC Section 1023.2, interior exit stairways connecting four or more stories must be enclosed by fire barriers with a fire-resistance rating of not less than 2 hours. However, the drawing encloses 'STAIR 1 203' using a line type referenced in the legend as a '1-HOUR FIRE BARRIER PER CBC 713, 1023'. A 1-hour rat...

Why it matters: Providing an insufficient fire-resistance rating for an interior exit stairway in a high-rise building severely compromises the primary egress route during a fire, endangering occupant safety. This constitutes a severe life-safety violation that will result in plan rejection by the permitting aut...

Suggested next step: Please update the stairway enclosure design and legend to specify a 2-hour fire barrier for Stair 1, as required by CBC 1023.2 for buildings connecting four or more stories.

RFI draft: Please update the stairway enclosure design and legend to specify a 2-hour fire barrier for Stair 1, as required by CBC 1023.2 for buildings connecting four or more stories.

Summary: Keynote 09.01 details the assembly for the exterior cement plaster walls as a finish coat over two coats of Quikrete over two layers of building paper directly over framing. This explicitly specified sequence omits the required metal or wire fabric lath between the building paper and the cement plaster base coats.

Why it matters: CBC Section 2512.1 mandates that cement plaster applied over framing must be installed over metal lath, wire fabric lath, or gypsum board backing to provide a mechanical key. Section 2510.5 requires backing or lath to provide sufficient rigidity. Applying cement plaster directly over building pap...

Suggested next step: Please revise Keynote 09.01 to explicitly include the required corrosion-resistant metal or wire fabric lath layer between the building paper and the cement plaster base coats, in accordance with CBC Sections 2510.5 and 2512.1.

RFI draft: Please revise Keynote 09.01 to explicitly include the required corrosion-resistant metal or wire fabric lath layer between the building paper and the cement plaster base coats, in accordance with CBC Sections 2510.5 and 2512.1.

Summary: Elevation keynote 09.01 specifies a cement plaster assembly over framing consisting of an STO finish coat and two coats of 'Quikrete' applied directly over two layers of building paper. This specified layer sequence explicitly omits the required metal plaster base (lath). CBC Table 1404.2 requires three-coat stucco or exterior cement plaster to be installed over a metal plaster base when not ap...

Why it matters: Applying cement plaster directly to building paper over framing without a metal plaster base provides no structural reinforcement or bond for the plaster. This will result in cracking, delamination, and failure of the exterior wall covering, leading to severe water intrusion, structural damage, a...

Suggested next step: Please revise keynote 09.01 to include an approved metal plaster base (e.g., expanded metal lath or wire fabric lath) in the cement plaster assembly between the building paper and the scratch/brown coats, in compliance with CBC Table 1404.2.

RFI draft: Please revise keynote 09.01 to include an approved metal plaster base (e.g., expanded metal lath or wire fabric lath) in the cement plaster assembly between the building paper and the scratch/brown coats, in compliance with CBC Table 1404.2.

Summary: Keynote 09.01 specifies applying the exterior cement plaster assembly (two coats of Quikrete) directly over two layers of building paper on the framing. The building code requires cement plaster over framing to be applied over metal lath, wire fabric lath, or gypsum board backing to provide sufficient rigidity and structural support for the plaster.

Why it matters: Applying cement plaster directly to building paper without a rigid backing or lath will cause the stucco to lack a mechanical key. The plaster will fail to adhere structurally to the wall assembly, leading to delamination and massive failure of the exterior facade, which compromises the weather p...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the exterior wall assembly in Keynote 09.01 and update the architectural details to include the installation of metal lath or wire fabric lath between the building paper and the scratch coat, in compliance with CBC Sections 2510.5 and 2512.1.

RFI draft: Please clarify the exterior wall assembly in Keynote 09.01 and update the architectural details to include the installation of metal lath or wire fabric lath between the building paper and the scratch coat, in compliance with CBC Sections 2510.5 a...