Plan Review: 58 Issues Found

Summary: 13 index entries | 6 perfect matches | 6 mismatched | 1 missing Mismatched (6): A1.0: Expected: ARCHITECTURAL FLOOR PLAN (A1.0) | Actual: ARCHITECTURAL PLANS (A1.0)(p3) A1.1: Expected: ARCHITECTURAL FLOOR PLAN (A1.1) | Actual: ARCHITECTURAL PLANS (A1.1)(p4) A1.2: Expected: ELECTRICAL PLAN (A1.2) | Actual: MEP PLANS (A1.2)(p5) A2.1: Expected: ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIO...

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: 1 missing, 6 mismatched out of 13 sheets

Summary: The drawing states SDS = 1.293g with Site Class D-DEFAULT. Per ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.4, when Site Class D is selected as the default site class per Section 11.4.3, the value of Fa shall not be less than 1.2. Back-calculating from SDS = 1.293g: SMS = 1.5 × 1.293 = 1.9395g. If the engineer used Fa = 1.0 from Table 11.4-1 (which gives Fa = 1.0 for Site Class D at SS ≥ 1.5), this yields SS = 1.94g...

Why it matters: An unconservative SDS value directly reduces the calculated seismic base shear and all lateral force demands throughout the structure, affecting the design of shearwalls, holdowns, anchor bolts, connections, and foundations. For a Seismic Design Category D residential structure, a ~20% underestim...

Suggested next step: Please verify the mapped MCER spectral response acceleration parameter SS per ASCE 7-16 (USGS Seismic Design Tool at https://doi.org/10.5066/F7NK3C76) for 1715 Encinal Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501. Confirm that the minimum site coefficient Fa = 1.2 per Section 11.4.4 was applied ...

RFI draft: Please verify the mapped MCER spectral response acceleration parameter SS per ASCE 7-16 (USGS Seismic Design Tool at https://doi.org/10.5066/F7NK3C76) for 1715 Encinal Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501. Confirm that the minimum site coefficient Fa = 1.2 p...

Summary: Detail 10 specifies that the maximum hole diameter for joists or beams is calculated as "2D/SPAN". This mathematical relationship is structurally backwards and unsafe, as it allows for larger holes on shorter spans. For instance, a 12-inch deep beam spanning 2 feet would theoretically be permitted a 12-inch hole, removing 100% of the member's depth. This directly violates the building code requ...

Why it matters: If a framing contractor applies this incorrect formula, they could bore oversized holes in joists and beams (especially on shorter spans where shear forces are highest), completely destroying the structural capacity of the members. This will result in failed framing inspections and require the co...

Suggested next step: Submit an RFI to the Structural Engineer to remove the "2D/SPAN" formula in Detail 10 and replace it with standard, code-compliant hole sizing limits for joists and beams (e.g., maximum hole diameter of D/3, independent of the span length).

RFI draft: Submit an RFI to the Structural Engineer to remove the "2D/SPAN" formula in Detail 10 and replace it with standard, code-compliant hole sizing limits for joists and beams (e.g., maximum hole diameter of D/3, independent of the span length).

Summary: Details 1A/S2.0 (Conduit and Pipe at (E) Slab on Grade) and 1B/S2.0 (Conduit and Pipe at New Slab on Grade) both explicitly depict a condition labeled 'PIPE REQUIRING EMBEDMENT IN CONC' showing a pipe (up to 3" max) cast directly into the concrete slab with minimum cover dimensions but no sleeve or separation from the concrete. Additionally, Note 2 of Detail 4/S2.0 (Typical Pipe Thru Footing De...

Why it matters: If plumbing contractors follow these structural details and embed plumbing piping directly in concrete slabs, the installation would be flagged as a code violation during plumbing rough-in inspection. This would require costly concrete demolition and removal of embedded pipes, re-routing of plumb...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer revise Details 1A/S2.0 and 1B/S2.0 to clarify that the 'PIPE REQUIRING EMBEDMENT IN CONC' condition does not apply to plumbing piping, per CPC Section 312.2 which prohibits direct embedment of plumbing piping in concrete. Plumbing pipes through ...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer revise Details 1A/S2.0 and 1B/S2.0 to clarify that the 'PIPE REQUIRING EMBEDMENT IN CONC' condition does not apply to plumbing piping, per CPC Section 312.2 which prohibits direct embedment of plumbing piping in con...

Summary: The Proposed Roof Plan shows a roof curb perimeter that extends above the roof surface, creating a condition where water would be entrapped if primary drains fail. Primary drainage is fully detailed on the plan: 3"Ø roof drains at each corner with outlets through the wall to scuppers, served by a 6"-wide perimeter gutter. However, no secondary emergency overflow roof drains or scuppers are show...

Why it matters: The absence of secondary overflow drainage from the roof plan is a critical life-safety and structural concern. If primary drains become blocked by debris, ice, or any other obstruction, water will pond on the roof with no emergency relief path, potentially leading to structural overload and roof...

Suggested next step: Request the designer add secondary emergency overflow roof drains or scuppers to the Proposed Roof Plan in compliance with CRC R903.4.1. Overflow drains shall be the same size as the primary 3"Ø roof drains with the inlet flow line located 2 inches above the low point of the r...

RFI draft: Request the designer add secondary emergency overflow roof drains or scuppers to the Proposed Roof Plan in compliance with CRC R903.4.1. Overflow drains shall be the same size as the primary 3"Ø roof drains with the inlet flow line located 2 inche...

Summary: The Design Criteria on the drawing provides the short-period spectral acceleration parameter (SDs: 1.293g) and assigns Seismic Design Category D, but it omits the 1-second period parameters (SD1 and S1). ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.5 requires the determination of both SDS and SD1. Section 11.6 mandates that the Seismic Design Category be assigned based on the more severe category determined from bot...

Why it matters: Omitting the 1-second period parameters prevents the plan reviewer and building official from verifying the accuracy of the Seismic Design Category and checking whether the required site-specific ground motion penalties for Site Class D-Default have been applied. Given the high short-period accel...

Suggested next step: Please update the Seismic Parameters in the Design Criteria to include the missing S1 and SD1 values. Additionally, clarify if the design incorporates the required penalties or ground motion hazard analysis per ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.8 for Site Class D-Default structures with ...

RFI draft: Please update the Seismic Parameters in the Design Criteria to include the missing S1 and SD1 values. Additionally, clarify if the design incorporates the required penalties or ground motion hazard analysis per ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.8 for Site Cl...

Summary: Detail 4 ("SHEAR TRANSFER AT JOIST TO INTERIOR SHEAR WALL" - "AT PERPENDICULAR JOIST") specifies A35 clips connecting the solid blocking to the joists, but omits a direct connection from the blocking to the double top plate. The drawing's "SIMILAR" note references the parallel joist detail, which specifies A35 clips connecting the floor joist to the top plate at the Shear Wall Schedule spacing ...

Why it matters: Without a clearly detailed connection capable of meeting the shear wall schedule's required clip spacing (which must be applied to the continuous blocking, not the widely spaced joists), the diaphragm shear cannot safely transfer into the interior shear wall. This will lead to insufficient latera...

Suggested next step: Clarify Detail 4 for perpendicular joists to explicitly require A35 clips (or an equivalent specified connection) connecting the solid 2x blocking directly to the double top plate at the spacing required by the Shear Wall Schedule, rather than relying on the impossible joist-t...

RFI draft: Clarify Detail 4 for perpendicular joists to explicitly require A35 clips (or an equivalent specified connection) connecting the solid 2x blocking directly to the double top plate at the spacing required by the Shear Wall Schedule, rather than rel...

Summary: General Note 2 on the title page states 'MAINTAIN 1% MINIMUM SLOPE' as the acceptable minimum for site drainage. CBC Section 1804.4 requires that the ground immediately adjacent to the foundation be sloped away from the building at not less than 5-percent slope (1:20) for a minimum distance of 10 feet. Even under the most lenient exception (Exception 1, where climatic or soil conditions warrant...

Why it matters: This discrepancy could cause the plans to be rejected during plan check, requiring a revision and delaying permit issuance. If the contractor follows the 1% minimum as shown on the drawing for grading adjacent to the new pool house foundation, it would not comply with code, potentially leading to...

Suggested next step: Request that the design team revise General Note 2 to specify a minimum slope of not less than 5% (1 unit vertical in 20 units horizontal) for ground immediately adjacent to the foundation for a minimum distance of 10 feet, per CBC Section 1804.4, or 2% if the Exception 1 cond...

RFI draft: Request that the design team revise General Note 2 to specify a minimum slope of not less than 5% (1 unit vertical in 20 units horizontal) for ground immediately adjacent to the foundation for a minimum distance of 10 feet, per CBC Section 1804.4,...

Summary: The Structural Notes establish a project-wide default concrete compressive strength of f'c = 2,500 psi (UON). The project is classified as Group R-3 occupancy, not more than three stories above grade plane. Per CBC Section 1904.1 Exception, for R-3 occupancies the specified compressive strength for concrete in foundation walls, exterior walls, and other vertical surfaces exposed to weather shal...

Why it matters: If concrete is batched and placed at the 2,500 psi default for foundation walls or exterior walls, it will fail to meet the CBC durability requirement. This could result in a failed inspection, requiring demolition and replacement of the non-compliant concrete, causing significant cost overruns a...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer revise the general concrete note to specify f'c = 3,000 psi minimum as the default for all structural concrete, or at a minimum explicitly note that foundation walls, exterior walls, and other vertical surfaces exposed to weather shall have f'c ...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer revise the general concrete note to specify f'c = 3,000 psi minimum as the default for all structural concrete, or at a minimum explicitly note that foundation walls, exterior walls, and other vertical surfaces expo...

Summary: The Proposed Roof Plan shows a roof with a raised 'ROOF CURB PERIMETER' that extends above the roof surface, and primary drainage provided by '3"Ø ROOF DRAIN AT EA. CORNER, TYP. OUTLET THROUGH WALL TO SCUPPER' with a '6" WIDE PERIMETER GUTTER AT ROOF CURB, TYP.' The raised roof curb would entrap water if the primary drains allow buildup for any reason. However, the roof plan shows no secondary ...

Why it matters: The absence of secondary overflow drainage on a low-slope roof with a raised curb perimeter creates a risk of uncontrolled water ponding if primary drains are blocked. This would likely be flagged during plan review, requiring a design revision to add secondary overflow provisions (additional scu...

Suggested next step: Request that the design team provide secondary (emergency overflow) roof drains or scuppers on the roof plan per CBC Section 1502.2. The secondary scuppers should be sized and located per CBC Sections 1502.3 and 1611.1 to prevent ponding water from exceeding the structural roo...

RFI draft: Request that the design team provide secondary (emergency overflow) roof drains or scuppers on the roof plan per CBC Section 1502.2. The secondary scuppers should be sized and located per CBC Sections 1502.3 and 1611.1 to prevent ponding water fro...

Summary: All four proposed elevations (A through D) explicitly dimension the deck/finish floor at +2'-8" (32 inches) above grade (± 0'-0"). Section 1015.2 of the 2022 CBC requires guards along open-sided walking surfaces located more than 30 inches measured vertically to the grade below. The 32-inch deck height exceeds the 30-inch threshold by 2 inches. None of the four architectural elevations depict g...

Why it matters: Guards at elevated walking surfaces are a fundamental life-safety requirement. A plan checker or field inspector will identify the 32-inch deck height as triggering Section 1015.2 and require guards to be shown in the construction documents. If guards are not addressed before permitting, the proj...

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether guards are provided at the open edges of the proposed deck. If guards are intended, add them to the elevation and section drawings and provide guard details addressing minimum height, opening limitations, and structural attachment per Section 1015 requir...

RFI draft: Please confirm whether guards are provided at the open edges of the proposed deck. If guards are intended, add them to the elevation and section drawings and provide guard details addressing minimum height, opening limitations, and structural atta...

Summary: Detail 1, 'TYPICAL 1-HOUR FIRE RATED WALL ASSEMBLY,' explicitly lists all layers for the 'AT WOOD SIDING' exterior condition as: '1 LAYER 3/4" (MIN.) DROP SIDING PER PLANS W/ 7D GALV. SMOOTH BOX NAILS, O/ 1 LAYER 1/2" GYP. BD. W/ 1-3/4" X 11 GA. GALV. NAILS AT 8"O.C. O/ STRUCTURAL SHEAR PANEL, SSD.' No water-resistive barrier (WRB) is called out in this assembly. In contrast, the 'AT STUCCO' co...

Why it matters: If the wall is constructed per this detail without a WRB behind the wood siding, the building will fail code inspection for weather protection. A wall built without a WRB will allow water infiltration into the wall cavity, leading to rot of framing members, mold growth, and degradation of the 1/2...

Suggested next step: Request the architect clarify the wood siding assembly in Detail 1 to include a water-resistive barrier per CBC Sections 1402.2 and 1403.2, consistent with the WRB shown in the 'AT STUCCO' condition on the same detail and in the Exterior Wall Section (Section 3/A5.1). The revi...

RFI draft: Request the architect clarify the wood siding assembly in Detail 1 to include a water-resistive barrier per CBC Sections 1402.2 and 1403.2, consistent with the WRB shown in the 'AT STUCCO' condition on the same detail and in the Exterior Wall Sect...

Summary: The typical flat roof edge and drain detail specifies a 3-inch diameter drain pipe for the scupper. This directly conflicts with the building code, which mandates that scuppers must not have an opening dimension of less than 4 inches.

Why it matters: An undersized scupper restricts the capacity of the secondary emergency overflow drainage system. If the primary roof drain clogs or during heavy rainfall, restricted flow through a 3-inch scupper can cause excessive water ponding on the roof. This significantly increases structural live loads, c...

Suggested next step: Please revise the flat roof edge and drain detail to specify a minimum 4-inch dimension for the scupper and associated drain pipe to comply with CBC Section 1502.3.

RFI draft: Please revise the flat roof edge and drain detail to specify a minimum 4-inch dimension for the scupper and associated drain pipe to comply with CBC Section 1502.3.

Summary: The drawing specifies a '12" WIDE X 12" DEEP THICKENED SLAB PERIMETER AT LOWER PIT SLAB.' The general slab note indicates a 6" concrete slab placed over 6" of compacted crush rock. Because the thickened slab perimeter has a total vertical depth of only 12 inches from the top of the slab, it only extends to the bottom of the crush rock base layer. This results in 0 inches of embedment into the u...

Why it matters: Failing to embed the footing at least 12 inches into undisturbed ground compromises the bearing capacity, reduces lateral stability, and does not provide adequate frost protection. This will be flagged by the building inspector during plan check or field inspection, requiring a structural design ...

Suggested next step: Please revise the thickened slab perimeter detail to ensure the bottom of the footing extends a minimum of 12 inches below the undisturbed ground surface. This would require a total depth of at least 24 inches (accounting for the 6" slab and 6" crush rock) to comply with CBC S...

RFI draft: Please revise the thickened slab perimeter detail to ensure the bottom of the footing extends a minimum of 12 inches below the undisturbed ground surface. This would require a total depth of at least 24 inches (accounting for the 6" slab and 6" cr...

Summary: Detail 4 shows a footing being deepened over a trench using lean concrete. The drawing depicts the bottom surface of this deepened footing as a continuous sloped line with a 1:2 ratio (a 50% slope). This violates CBC Section 1809.3, which mandates that the bottom surface of a footing shall not have a slope exceeding 1 unit vertical in 10 units horizontal (10-percent slope), and explicitly requi...

Why it matters: Constructing a footing with a 50% sloped bearing surface without stepping it creates a severe failure plane. This can result in lateral sliding of the foundation under vertical loads, leading to foundation movement, structural instability, and failure during structural inspections.

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail 4 to specify that the bottom of the deepened footing (or lean concrete base) must be stepped rather than continuously sloped. Confirm that no individual sloped bearing surface exceeds a 1:10 (10%) slope, as required by CBC Section 1809.3.

RFI draft: Please revise Detail 4 to specify that the bottom of the deepened footing (or lean concrete base) must be stepped rather than continuously sloped. Confirm that no individual sloped bearing surface exceeds a 1:10 (10%) slope, as required by CBC Sec...