Plan Review: 213 Issues Found

Summary: 15 index entries | 10 perfect matches | 3 mismatched | 2 missing Mismatched (3): S4.1: Expected: FIRST FLOOR FRAMING DETAILS (S4.1) | Actual: FIRST FLOOR DETAILS (S4.1)(p11) S6.1: Expected: GARAGE ROOF FRAMING PLAN & DETAILS (S6.1) | Actual: GARAGE ROOF FRAMING PLAN (S6.1)(p15) S6.2: Expected: ROOF FRAMING DETAILS (S6.2) | Actual: ROOF DETAILS (S6.2)(p16) Missing (2...

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: 2 missing, 3 mismatched out of 15 sheets

Summary: 42 index entries | 0 perfect matches | 5 mismatched | 37 missing Mismatched (5): TS-R: Expected: TITLE SHEET (TS-R) | Actual: LOOFBOURROW RESIDENCE (TS-R)(p1) SP2: Expected: SITE PLAN (ENLARGED) (SP2) | Actual: LOOFBOURROW RESIDENCE 19490 LAMINACK LN. JAMUL, CA 91935 (SP2)(p2) A1.1-R: Expected: DOOR & WINDOW SCHEDULE (A1.1-R) | Actual: LOOFBOURROW RESIDENCE (A1.1-R)(...

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: 37 missing, 5 mismatched out of 42 sheets

Summary: The ICCF notes state that horizontal reinforcement may be placed on the bottom of the ICF horizontal core with 'no need for elevation for concrete coverage.' This results in zero concrete cover at the bottom surface.

Why it matters: ACI 318-19 Table 20.5.1.3.1 requires a minimum of 3/4" specified concrete cover for reinforcement in walls not exposed to weather or in contact with ground. The code also explicitly states that reinforcement with alternative protection from weather (such as ICF formwork) may not have concrete cov...

Suggested next step: Please revise the ICCF horizontal reinforcement note to mandate the use of chairs or proper elevation to maintain a minimum of 3/4" concrete cover between the reinforcement and the bottom of the ICF core, per ACI 318-19 Section 20.5.1.3.1.

RFI draft: Please revise the ICCF horizontal reinforcement note to mandate the use of chairs or proper elevation to maintain a minimum of 3/4" concrete cover between the reinforcement and the bottom of the ICF core, per ACI 318-19 Section 20.5.1.3.1.

Summary: Sheet Note 13 specifies the reinforcement for the 10" ICCF cast-in-place concrete core walls as "#5 @ 12" O.C. U.O.N." This explicitly calls out reinforcement for only one direction (longitudinal/vertical), completely omitting the code-mandated transverse (horizontal) reinforcement.

Why it matters: ACI 318-19 Table 11.6.1 requires a minimum transverse reinforcement ratio (ρt) of 0.0020 for cast-in-place concrete walls. Failing to specify the horizontal reinforcement violates the building code and will result in the walls being built without it, which leads to uncontrolled shrinkage cracking...

Suggested next step: Please revise Sheet Note 13 to explicitly specify the transverse (horizontal) reinforcement size and spacing for the 10" ICCF walls, ensuring it meets the minimum ρt = 0.0020 requirement per ACI 318-19 Table 11.6.1 (e.g., adding "E.W." if the intent is each way).

RFI draft: Please revise Sheet Note 13 to explicitly specify the transverse (horizontal) reinforcement size and spacing for the 10" ICCF walls, ensuring it meets the minimum ρt = 0.0020 requirement per ACI 318-19 Table 11.6.1 (e.g., adding "E.W." if the inte...

Summary: Detail 7A details a thickened slab for a shear wall ('SHEATHING PER SHEARWALL SCHED') but mandates a 'SLAB CONTROL JOINT... EACH SIDE OF THICKENED PORTION' and explicitly instructs to 'CUT EVERY OTHER BAR AT CONTROL JOINT TYPICAL'. Detail 6 further specifies to 'SAW CUT WITHIN 8 HOURS' at these joints. ACI 318-19 Section 13.2.4.1 requires slabs-on-ground that transmit lateral forces to be desig...

Why it matters: Mandating sawcut control joints and cutting 50% of the reinforcement on both sides of a shear wall foundation directly compromises the slab's capacity to act as a lateral diaphragm or drag strut. During a seismic or wind event, these artificially created weak planes will prevent the lateral force...

Suggested next step: Confirm if the slab-on-ground adjacent to shear wall thickened slabs is intended to act as a structural diaphragm. If so, revise Details 7A and 6 to explicitly prohibit slab control joints and sawcutting adjacent to shear wall foundations, and ensure continuous reinforcement i...

RFI draft: Confirm if the slab-on-ground adjacent to shear wall thickened slabs is intended to act as a structural diaphragm. If so, revise Details 7A and 6 to explicitly prohibit slab control joints and sawcutting adjacent to shear wall foundations, and ens...

Summary: Details 3, 4, and 7 depict a wood ledger supporting roof/floor framing at an ICCF (concrete) wall. The drawings specify roof rafters at 24" O.C., while the out-of-plane continuous ties (Simpson PA23 straps) are spaced at 32" O.C. maximum. Furthermore, the ledger is bolted directly to the wall with 5/8" anchor bolts spaced at 12" O.C. (Details 3 & 4) or 24" O.C. (Detail 7). Because the continuou...

Why it matters: Wood is exceptionally weak in tension perpendicular to its grain. Subjecting the ledger to cross-grain tension during a seismic event can cause the ledger to split horizontally along its length. A split ledger loses its vertical load-carrying capacity for the roof/floor joists, which can lead to ...

Suggested next step: Please revise the ICCF wall-to-diaphragm anchorage details to eliminate cross-grain bending and tension in the wood ledger. Recommend providing a direct, continuous tension tie (e.g., embedded strap or tension tie hardware) at every joist/rafter location (e.g., 24" O.C.), and ...

RFI draft: Please revise the ICCF wall-to-diaphragm anchorage details to eliminate cross-grain bending and tension in the wood ledger. Recommend providing a direct, continuous tension tie (e.g., embedded strap or tension tie hardware) at every joist/rafter l...

Summary: The drawing's general notes state the project is designed per '2022 California Building Code (CBC) based on the 2021 International Building Code (IBC)', which references ASCE 7-16 for wind loads. However, the wind design parameters list 'Wind Importance Factor, Iw = 1.0' and 'Basic Wind Speed (3 second gust) = 97 mph.' ASCE 7-16 does not include a wind importance factor; this parameter was elim...

Why it matters: Using wind design parameters from an obsolete code edition results in under-designed wind force resisting systems, components and cladding, connections, and anchorage. This would likely be flagged during plan review as non-compliant with the 2022 CBC/2021 IBC, causing plan check rejection. All wi...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer determine the basic wind speed from the ASCE 7-16 wind speed maps per Section 26.5.1 (Fig. 26.5-1B for Risk Category II), remove the obsolete Wind Importance Factor (Iw) parameter from the design notes, and revise all wind load calculations and ...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer determine the basic wind speed from the ASCE 7-16 wind speed maps per Section 26.5.1 (Fig. 26.5-1B for Risk Category II), remove the obsolete Wind Importance Factor (Iw) parameter from the design notes, and revise a...

Summary: The lower foundation plan contains a disclaimer stating "Structural details for this project are for illustration only." This explicitly invalidates the structural details as engineered construction documents, directly contradicting the building code which requires the building structure to include complete lateral and vertical force-resisting systems with their adequacy formally demonstrated b...

Why it matters: Construction based on "illustrative" details rather than fully engineered, project-specific designs removes the guarantee of an adequate continuous load path and seismic force-resisting system. This shifts the engineering responsibility to the contractor, violating standard design requirements an...

Suggested next step: Remove the note stating "Structural details for this project are for illustration only." Confirm and formally certify that all structural details provided on the drawings are engineered, accurate, and fully intended for actual construction.

RFI draft: Remove the note stating "Structural details for this project are for illustration only." Confirm and formally certify that all structural details provided on the drawings are engineered, accurate, and fully intended for actual construction.

Summary: The schedule for columns C101, C102, and C103 (titled "3 WOOD BEAM SCHEDULE") explicitly specifies "-" (none) for their base connections. This leaves the wood columns without any specified hardware to positively connect them to their supporting foundations, preventing the transfer of lateral shear and uplift forces.

Why it matters: ASCE 7-16 Section 12.1.3 mandates a continuous load path with adequate strength and stiffness to transfer all forces to the final point of resistance. Omitting base connections for structural columns severs this required load path, compromising the seismic force-resisting system. Unanchored colum...

Suggested next step: Please revise the schedule for columns C101, C102, and C103 to specify appropriate positive base connection hardware (e.g., steel post bases or equivalent anchors) to ensure a continuous seismic load path to the foundation. (Note: The table containing these columns appears to ...

RFI draft: Please revise the schedule for columns C101, C102, and C103 to specify appropriate positive base connection hardware (e.g., steel post bases or equivalent anchors) to ensure a continuous seismic load path to the foundation. (Note: The table contai...

Summary: Detail 2 specifies a "2-5/8"Ø THROUGH BOLT" and a "2-5/8"Ø TITEN HD ANCHOR" to secure a nominal 4x12 stringer (3.5" actual width) to its base bracket. Detail 8B similarly specifies a "PLATE W/ 2-5/8" Ø" connection. Boring a 2.625" diameter hole through a 3.5" wide wood member consumes 75% of the cross-section, leaving less than 1/2" of wood on either side of the hole. This eliminates the member...

Why it matters: A 2-5/8" diameter Titen HD anchor does not exist in standard manufacturing. This is a severe drafting error where the intended callout was likely for two 5/8" diameter fasteners ("2 - 5/8"Ø"). If a contractor interprets the plans literally, attempting to accommodate a 2-5/8" hole will result in c...

Suggested next step: Please confirm if the callouts for "2-5/8"Ø" fasteners in Details 2 and 8B are typographical errors intended to be two 5/8" diameter fasteners (e.g., "2 - 5/8"Ø"). Revise the details to clarify the correct fastener diameter, quantity, and spacing to ensure the structural membe...

RFI draft: Please confirm if the callouts for "2-5/8"Ø" fasteners in Details 2 and 8B are typographical errors intended to be two 5/8" diameter fasteners (e.g., "2 - 5/8"Ø"). Revise the details to clarify the correct fastener diameter, quantity, and spacing ...

Summary: The '5 WOOD COLUMN SCHEDULE' explicitly lists structural columns C201, C202, and C204 with no base connection ('-'). The floor plan marks these specific columns with a circle symbol, which the legend defines as 'STUB, SHORT,POST.' Since these are stub posts, they terminate at this level and require a positive base connection to transfer lateral and uplift forces (as demonstrated by another stub...

Why it matters: ASCE 7-16 Section 12.1.3 mandates that all parts of the structure be interconnected to form a continuous load path to the seismic force-resisting system. Section 12.1.4 requires a positive connection for each beam or girder to its supporting elements. The failure to specify base and top connectio...

Suggested next step: Please update the '5 WOOD COLUMN SCHEDULE' and '7 HOT ROLLED STEEL COLUMN SCHEDULE' to specify the required positive base and top connections (e.g., Simpson strong-tie post bases/caps, welded steel plates) for all columns currently listed with a '-' to ensure a continuous seis...

RFI draft: Please update the '5 WOOD COLUMN SCHEDULE' and '7 HOT ROLLED STEEL COLUMN SCHEDULE' to specify the required positive base and top connections (e.g., Simpson strong-tie post bases/caps, welded steel plates) for all columns currently listed with a '...

Summary: ASCE 7 Section 12.1.3 requires all parts of the structure to be interconnected to form a continuous load path with connections capable of transmitting required forces. The Upper Roof Framing Plan details multiple beams (including at least six B301 beams) converging at the top of the C301 stub post. The Wood Beam Schedule identifies B301 as 4x10 members, while the Wood Column Schedule identifies...

Why it matters: Framers will immediately encounter a physical impossibility when attempting to connect the radial roof framing to the central stub post. The specified hardware (Simpson PC) is completely incompatible with a multi-beam radial hub. This will require a stop-work RFI and an engineered redesign of the...

Suggested next step: The radial roof framing details multiple 4x10 beams (B301) converging on a single 4x4 post (C301) using a Simpson PC cap. This geometry is physically impossible and fails to provide a continuous load path per ASCE 7 Section 12.1.3. Please provide an engineered structural hub d...

RFI draft: The radial roof framing details multiple 4x10 beams (B301) converging on a single 4x4 post (C301) using a Simpson PC cap. This geometry is physically impossible and fails to provide a continuous load path per ASCE 7 Section 12.1.3. Please provide ...

Summary: Details 3/S6.1 and 4/S6.1 show the "10\" ICF WALL" anchored to the roof diaphragm using an "ANCHOR BOLT" through a "3x SILL GASKET PT,CONT" and "CONTINUOUS 3X PT TOP PLATE". The roof framing is then attached to the top face of this wood plate using framing anchors ("SIMP L90 @ EA TRUSS", "A35 @12\" O.C., USE SCREWS INTO TOP PLATE, TYP.", and "SIMPSON A35FRAMING ANCHOR @ EA DIAGONAL BRACE"). Whe...

Why it matters: Wood is very weak in tension across the grain and can easily split. If constructed as detailed, an earthquake could cause the top plate to split along its grain, separating the heavy concrete walls from the roof diaphragm and leading to wall collapse. This will be flagged during structural plan r...

Suggested next step: Please revise the out-of-plane wall anchorage details (3/S6.1 and 4/S6.1) to provide a direct connection from the concrete wall to the roof trusses and blocking. Consider using embedded strap ties or wall-mounted hold-downs that bypass the wood top plate to eliminate cross-gra...

RFI draft: Please revise the out-of-plane wall anchorage details (3/S6.1 and 4/S6.1) to provide a direct connection from the concrete wall to the roof trusses and blocking. Consider using embedded strap ties or wall-mounted hold-downs that bypass the wood to...

Summary: Detail 6 specifies a gable roof overhang cantilever of up to "5'-0", MAX." supported by a "2X6 OUT LOOKER" that is "LAID FLAT @ 24" O.C..". A 2x6 member laid flat provides only 1.5 inches of structural depth. Under the required ASCE 7 roof overhang wind loads, this flat framing lacks the bending capacity and stiffness to safely support a 5-foot cantilever. This violates the AWC NDS standard for...

Why it matters: Constructing a 5'-0" roof overhang with flat 2x6 outlookers will lead to severe structural deflection, sagging, and a high risk of catastrophic failure under wind uplift or gravity roof loads. This will cause failed framing inspections and require significant remedial structural work to provide a...

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail 6 to specify adequate structural support for the 5'-0" overhang. Typical solutions include orienting the outlookers vertically (e.g., 2x6 or 2x8 standing up), significantly reducing the overhang depth, or providing engineered dropped gable end trusses with...

RFI draft: Please revise Detail 6 to specify adequate structural support for the 5'-0" overhang. Typical solutions include orienting the outlookers vertically (e.g., 2x6 or 2x8 standing up), significantly reducing the overhang depth, or providing engineered ...

Summary: Detail 11 specifies connecting joists to a 10" ICCF block wall using a "SIMPSON ABU POSTBASE" attached with a "5/8"Ø ANCHOR BOLT @ 24" O.C.". An ABU is a stand-off base engineered strictly for vertical column-to-foundation connections, not as a sideways face-mount joist hanger. Furthermore, the detail incorrectly specifies edge nailing structural sheathing to the concrete/foam ICCF wall ("WALL ...

Why it matters: The detail appears to be a copy-paste error mixing wood shear wall callouts with ICCF concrete block walls. Mounting a post base horizontally places the hardware and the anchor bolt in an untested, eccentric shear condition it is not designed to resist. Attempting to execute this detail will resu...

Suggested next step: Please redesign Detail 11. Remove the ABU post base and 8d nailing callouts. Specify an appropriate ICC-ES listed masonry/concrete face-mount joist hanger (or a properly anchored wood ledger board) engineered for horizontal shear connections to ICCF walls.

RFI draft: Please redesign Detail 11. Remove the ABU post base and 8d nailing callouts. Specify an appropriate ICC-ES listed masonry/concrete face-mount joist hanger (or a properly anchored wood ledger board) engineered for horizontal shear connections to IC...