Plan Review: 294 Issues Found

Summary: The demolition plans specify the removal of existing concrete walls and a section of a load-bearing wall. Removing these structural elements decreases their design strength to resist seismic forces by more than 10% (as they are completely removed). Per ASCE 7-16 Section 11B.4, alterations that decrease the design strength of any existing structural element by more than 10% require the entire se...

Why it matters: Bypassing the requirement to evaluate the entire seismic force-resisting system against new building standards when structural capacities are significantly reduced can compromise the building's stability during a seismic event. This will result in plan check rejection and potential major structur...

Suggested next step: Please provide engineering analysis determining that the entire seismic force-resisting system complies with the requirements for a new structure, as required by ASCE 7-16 Section 11B.4 due to the removal of existing load-bearing and concrete walls.

RFI draft: Please provide engineering analysis determining that the entire seismic force-resisting system complies with the requirements for a new structure, as required by ASCE 7-16 Section 11B.4 due to the removal of existing load-bearing and concrete walls.

Summary: Details 15 and 18 indicate the connection of a new wood floor infill to an existing concrete basement/crawlspace wall. Both details show a '2X12 LEDGER' anchored to the 'EX. CONCRETE CRAWLSPACE WALL' or 'EX. CONCRETE BASEMENT WALL' with threaded rods. Detail 15 shows a 'WOOD JOIST PER PLAN' supported by a 'SIMPSON FACE-MOUNT HANGER' attached to the ledger, while Detail 18 shows the joists runni...

Why it matters: Wood is highly susceptible to splitting and catastrophic failure when subjected to cross-grain tension. During a seismic event, outward out-of-plane forces from the concrete wall could cause the ledger to fail along its grain, severing the wall-to-diaphragm anchorage. This would permit the heavy ...

Suggested next step: Please revise Details 15 and 18 to include a dedicated, direct tension tie from the existing concrete wall to the wood framing or diaphragm to transfer out-of-plane seismic forces. This will ensure the 2x12 ledger is not subjected to cross-grain tension or bending, complying w...

RFI draft: Please revise Details 15 and 18 to include a dedicated, direct tension tie from the existing concrete wall to the wood framing or diaphragm to transfer out-of-plane seismic forces. This will ensure the 2x12 ledger is not subjected to cross-grain t...

Summary: Detail 7 details a 4-1/2 inch maximum gap cut completely through the double top plate of a shear wall to accommodate plumbing pipes. To repair this interruption, the detail specifies a flat SIMPSON CTS218 strap. While this strap restores the tension continuity of the plate, the top plate in a shear wall also functions as a primary boundary element (chord/collector) that must transfer compressiv...

Why it matters: Without compressive continuity across the gap, the top plate cannot effectively act as a diaphragm chord or collector. This structural deficiency will lead to localized buckling, excessive drift, or failure of the shear wall boundary element during a seismic event, and will likely trigger a rejec...

Suggested next step: Please provide a revised detail that maintains both tension and compression continuity across the shear wall top plate gap (e.g., specifying a steel channel, compressive blocking assembly, or bridging that can effectively transfer compressive forces).

RFI draft: Please provide a revised detail that maintains both tension and compression continuity across the shear wall top plate gap (e.g., specifying a steel channel, compressive blocking assembly, or bridging that can effectively transfer compressive forc...

Summary: Details 7, 8, and 13 show a 'PRECAST LANDING PER ARCH' resting on a 'STEEL BEAM PER PLAN'. However, the structural details do not show or call out any positive mechanical connection (such as welded embedded plates, shear studs, or bolted connections) between the precast concrete landing and the supporting steel beams.

Why it matters: ASCE 7-16 Section 12.1.3 requires all parts of the structure to be interconnected to form a continuous load path to the seismic force-resisting system. Section 12.1.4 similarly requires supporting elements to be connected to slabs acting as diaphragms. Without a positive tie-down, the heavy preca...

Suggested next step: Please revise the framing details to include a positive structural connection (e.g., embedded weld plates, anchor bolts, or shear studs) between the precast landings and the supporting steel beams, ensuring a continuous seismic load path in accordance with ASCE 7-16 Section 12...

RFI draft: Please revise the framing details to include a positive structural connection (e.g., embedded weld plates, anchor bolts, or shear studs) between the precast landings and the supporting steel beams, ensuring a continuous seismic load path in accord...

Summary: Details 18 and 20 show a wood roof/floor diaphragm bearing on a CMU wall via a continuous wood sill plate ("CONT. 2X8 SILL PLATE" and "CONT. 2X6 SILL PLATE"). The sill plate is fastened to the CMU wall with screw anchors ("THD50600WH SCREW ANCHOR @ 32\" O.C." and "THD50600H SCREW ANCHOR @ 32\" O.C."). The diaphragm framing is connected to the sill plate (e.g., via "SIMPSON H3 HURRICANE TIE" and...

Why it matters: ASCE 7-16 Section 12.11.2.2.3 strictly prohibits using wood ledgers or framing in cross-grain bending or cross-grain tension for the anchorage of concrete or masonry structural walls. It also specifies that diaphragm sheathing alone is not effective for providing these ties. Lacking direct, conti...

Suggested next step: Clarify the out-of-plane wall anchorage load path for Details 18 and 20. Revise the details to include continuous steel tension ties that connect the CMU wall directly to the diaphragm framing/blocking, bypassing the wood sill plate to prevent cross-grain bending, in complianc...

RFI draft: Clarify the out-of-plane wall anchorage load path for Details 18 and 20. Revise the details to include continuous steel tension ties that connect the CMU wall directly to the diaphragm framing/blocking, bypassing the wood sill plate to prevent cro...

Summary: The site grading plan shows exterior finished surface (FS) elevations immediately adjacent to Buildings A and C that are higher than their respective interior finished floor (F.F.) elevations. Adjacent to Building C (F.F.=588.50), the exterior grade is marked as FS 588.53 and FS 588.60. Adjacent to Building A (F.F.=590.30), the exterior patio is marked as FS (590.35).

Why it matters: CBC 1804.4 requires the ground adjacent to the foundation to be sloped away from the building to prevent water intrusion, specifying that impervious surfaces must slope not less than 2 percent away. Setting exterior grades higher than the interior floor directs surface water towards the foundatio...

Suggested next step: Please revise the site grading plan to lower the exterior finished surfaces adjacent to Buildings A and C so they are below the finished floor elevations and slope away from the foundations by at least 2%, as required by CBC 1804.4.

RFI draft: Please revise the site grading plan to lower the exterior finished surfaces adjacent to Buildings A and C so they are below the finished floor elevations and slope away from the foundations by at least 2%, as required by CBC 1804.4.

Summary: The Demolition Notes explicitly instruct that existing plumbing, water, power, gas, and telecom are "TO REMAIN/REUSE". This instruction directly contradicts CBC Section 3303.6, which mandates that service utility connections must be "discontinued and capped" during demolition. Instructing that these services remain active or failing to explicitly require them to be safely capped during a major ...

Why it matters: Allowing active utility connections—particularly gas and electrical power—to remain live or uncapped while a building is being gutted to its framing creates an extreme life-safety hazard. This puts workers at risk of electrocution, fires, or gas explosions, and will likely result in a failed safe...

Suggested next step: Please revise the Demolition Notes to clarify that while the existing utility infrastructure may be reused in the final construction, all active service utility connections (including gas, water, and power) must be properly discontinued and capped prior to and during the demol...

RFI draft: Please revise the Demolition Notes to clarify that while the existing utility infrastructure may be reused in the final construction, all active service utility connections (including gas, water, and power) must be properly discontinued and capped...

Summary: The Demolition Notes state '-EXISTING PLUMBING, WATER, POWER, GAS AND TELECOM TO REMAIN/REUSE.' while also indicating the '-BUILDING SHALL BE STRIPPED BACK TO FRAMING WALLS (WALLS AND CEILING).' However, the building code mandates that service utility connections must be discontinued and capped during demolition.

Why it matters: Keeping utility service connections active or uncapped while a building is being stripped to its framing introduces severe fire, explosion, and electrocution hazards for demolition workers. Code requires these services to be formally discontinued and capped to ensure safe site conditions.

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the service utility connections will be properly discontinued and capped at the source prior to the start of demolition, as required by code, even though the internal infrastructure is intended to remain for reuse.

RFI draft: Please clarify if the service utility connections will be properly discontinued and capped at the source prior to the start of demolition, as required by code, even though the internal infrastructure is intended to remain for reuse.

Summary: The demolition notes dictate that the building will be completely stripped back to its framing walls and ceilings. However, the notes concurrently state that existing plumbing, water, power, gas, and telecom lines are to "REMAIN/REUSE". This directly contradicts CBC Section 3303.6, which strictly requires that service utility connections be discontinued and capped during demolition work.

Why it matters: Leaving utility connections (especially gas and power) live or improperly capped while completely stripping a building down to the framing poses extreme fire, electrocution, and structural damage risks to the workers and the property. Even if the utility infrastructure is intended for reuse in th...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the utility handling procedure during the demolition phase. To comply with CBC Section 3303.6, please confirm that all service utility connections (plumbing, water, power, and gas) will be properly discontinued and capped prior to stripping the building back to ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the utility handling procedure during the demolition phase. To comply with CBC Section 3303.6, please confirm that all service utility connections (plumbing, water, power, and gas) will be properly discontinued and capped prior to s...

Summary: The drawing indicates a central pool area (evidenced by the "POOL BAR") surrounded by building blocks with living units and outdoor patios facing the area. California Building Code Section 3119B.1 strictly prohibits doors of living units from serving as part of the pool enclosure, meaning a continuous compliant fence must isolate the living units from the pool. Furthermore, the drawing notes th...

Why it matters: Failing to provide a continuous, 5-foot minimum height pool enclosure that isolates the pool from living units creates a severe life-safety hazard and drowning risk. The project will fail health and building safety plan reviews and will not be permitted for construction without a compliant enclos...

Suggested next step: Please provide a detailed pool enclosure plan showing a continuous fence or barrier with a minimum height of 5 feet that fully separates the pool from all living unit doors and patios, in accordance with CBC Section 3119B.1. Clarify that perimeter walls less than 5 feet high a...

RFI draft: Please provide a detailed pool enclosure plan showing a continuous fence or barrier with a minimum height of 5 feet that fully separates the pool from all living unit doors and patios, in accordance with CBC Section 3119B.1. Clarify that perimeter...

Summary: The floor plan indicates fire-rated assemblies (heavy dashed lines) enclosing the perimeters of specific adjacent unit pairs, such as the "GUEST UNIT" and "GUEST SUITE" located between grid lines A-10 and A-12. However, the demising wall separating these two distinct sleeping units lacks a rated wall designation. Section 420.2 requires all walls separating sleeping units in the same building to...

Why it matters: Failing to specify fire partitions between adjacent sleeping units violates fundamental life safety and fire separation code requirements. If constructed unrated, this will lead to failed building and fire inspections, necessitating costly demolition and replacement of the demising walls to achie...

Suggested next step: Please confirm that all demising walls between adjacent, distinct sleeping units (including those within shared perimeter enclosures) will be constructed as fire partitions per Section 420.2. Update the floor plan to explicitly show the correct '1-HR RATED WALL' or '2-HR RATED...

RFI draft: Please confirm that all demising walls between adjacent, distinct sleeping units (including those within shared perimeter enclosures) will be constructed as fire partitions per Section 420.2. Update the floor plan to explicitly show the correct '1...

Summary: The building floor plan features an 'UNCONDITIONED CORRIDOR' separating multiple 'GUEST UNIT' rooms. Section 1020.2 requires corridor walls to be fire-resistance rated and comply with Section 708 for fire partitions. Furthermore, Section 708.1 (Item 7) and 708.3 mandate a minimum 1-hour fire-resistance rating for walls separating sleeping units in Group R occupancies. Although the Wall Legend o...

Why it matters: Failing to clearly indicate the required 1-hour fire-resistance ratings on the floor plan will lead to plan check comments and may result in the construction of standard, unrated walls. This directly violates life safety fire separation codes, compromising occupant safety during a fire event and ...

Suggested next step: Please confirm that the demising walls between Guest Units and the corridor walls require a fire-resistance rating per CBC 708.1, 708.3, and 1020.2. Update the floor plan to graphically indicate the '1-HR RATED WALL' hatch type for all applicable fire partitions.

RFI draft: Please confirm that the demising walls between Guest Units and the corridor walls require a fire-resistance rating per CBC 708.1, 708.3, and 1020.2. Update the floor plan to graphically indicate the '1-HR RATED WALL' hatch type for all applicable ...

Summary: The floor plan designates a 'CHANGING RM' with a total area of '25 SF'. According to CBC Sections 11B-803.2 and 11B-803.4, dressing and fitting rooms must provide a turning space within the room, as well as an accessible bench. The turning space alone requires a significant clear floor area to allow a wheelchair to turn. The bench is a physical object that occupies floor space and acts as an ob...

Why it matters: A non-compliant changing room will fail accessibility plan review and field inspections. Attempting to fix this during construction will require demolishing walls and reducing the size of adjacent rooms, causing significant schedule delays and cost overruns.

Suggested next step: Please increase the square footage of the Changing Room to safely accommodate both a clear turning space and an accessible bench without overlap, and update the architectural floor plans accordingly.

RFI draft: Please increase the square footage of the Changing Room to safely accommodate both a clear turning space and an accessible bench without overlap, and update the architectural floor plans accordingly.

Summary: Section 708.1 (Item 7) requires walls separating sleeping units in Group R occupancies to be fire partitions, and Section 708.3 requires them to have a minimum fire-resistance rating of 1 hour. The provided drawing legend defines a '1-HR RATED WALL' with a specific dashed line type, and 'NEW WALL(S)' with a solid line type. The floor plans show the demising walls between adjacent guest units wi...

Why it matters: Inadequate fire separation between sleeping units poses a severe life safety hazard by allowing fire and smoke to spread rapidly between rooms. This will result in failed plan reviews, failed inspections, and critical safety liabilities if constructed as drawn.

Suggested next step: Please confirm that the demising walls separating all guest sleeping units are required to be 1-hour fire partitions, and update the floor plans to graphically indicate the '1-HR RATED WALL' dashed linetype for all inter-unit demising walls.

RFI draft: Please confirm that the demising walls separating all guest sleeping units are required to be 1-hour fire partitions, and update the floor plans to graphically indicate the '1-HR RATED WALL' dashed linetype for all inter-unit demising walls.

Summary: The drawing details for 1-hour fire-resistance-rated partitions (such as Types 1A and 1D) specify a generic "SEALANT CONT. @ PERIMETER" at the head joint where the wall meets the underside of the structure above. This is the identical notation used for non-rated partitions. CBC Section 715.3 requires joints between fire-resistance-rated walls and the structure above to be protected by an approv...

Why it matters: Standard building sealant will not resist fire for 1 hour. In the event of a fire, standard sealant will quickly melt or burn away, creating an unprotected gap at the top of the wall that allows fire and smoke to freely pass into adjacent compartments. This compromises the required 1-hour life sa...

Suggested next step: Please revise the head-of-wall details for all fire-resistance-rated partitions to explicitly specify an "approved fire-resistant joint system" (such as a listed intumescent firestop sealant or spray assembly) in accordance with CBC Section 715.3.

RFI draft: Please revise the head-of-wall details for all fire-resistance-rated partitions to explicitly specify an "approved fire-resistant joint system" (such as a listed intumescent firestop sealant or spray assembly) in accordance with CBC Section 715.3.