Plan Review: 152 Issues Found

Summary: 8 index entries | 6 perfect matches | 1 mismatched | 1 missing Mismatched (1): D2: Expected: CITY DETAILS (D2) | Actual: DETAILS (D2)(p5) Missing (1), listed in drawing index but not found in the document: Other: - 1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS - SUN COUNTRY ENGINEERING

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, 1 mismatched out of 8 sheets

Summary: 8 index entries | 1 perfect matches | 0 mismatched | 7 missing Missing (7), listed in drawing index but not found in the document: Other: - 1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS - SUN COUNTRY ENGINEERING Civil: - C1 SITE PLAN - C2 GRADING PLAN - C3 UTILITY PLAN - C4 EROSION CONTROL - D1 SITE DETAILS - D2 CITY DETAILS

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: 7 missing, 0 mismatched out of 8 sheets

Summary: 40 index entries | 29 perfect matches | 2 mismatched | 9 missing Mismatched (2): A1.2: Expected: REFLECTED CEILING PLANS (A1.2) | Actual: REFLECTED CEILING PLAN (A1.2)(p4) EN1: Expected: ENERGY SPECS (EN1) | Actual: ENVELOPE ENERGY SPECS (EN1)(p26) Missing (9), listed in drawing index but not found in the document: Civil: - C1 SITE PLAN - D1 SITE DETAILS - C...

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: 9 missing, 2 mismatched out of 40 sheets

Summary: The Cover Sheet (CS) states the project is located in Seismic Design Category D, while the Structural Specifications sheet (S0) lists the Design Category as C under its detailed seismic design criteria. These are contradictory designations for the same project. Notably, the S0 sheet's own seismic parameters (Sds = 0.292, Sd1 = 0.172, Risk Category II, Site Class D) would yield SDC B per ASCE 7-...

Why it matters: Seismic Design Category directly governs structural detailing requirements, connection design, special inspection scope, and permitted lateral force-resisting systems. An SDC D classification triggers more stringent requirements than SDC C, including additional special inspection items, more rest...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer (LB Engineering, Inc.) confirm the correct Seismic Design Category for the project. Specifically: (1) Verify the seismic parameters Ss, S1, Sds, Sd1 and the applicable Site Class used for design; (2) Confirm whether the governing SDC is C or D, n...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer (LB Engineering, Inc.) confirm the correct Seismic Design Category for the project. Specifically: (1) Verify the seismic parameters Ss, S1, Sds, Sd1 and the applicable Site Class used for design; (2) Confirm whether...

Summary: The Cover Sheet site map indicates North is oriented 'up' on the page (represented by the 'N' at the top). The Civil Site Plan (C1) property line bearings also establish that North is 'up' geometrically (e.g., the western boundary bearing is 'N0°19'26"E 299.97'', running vertically up the page). However, the graphical North arrow drawn on the Civil Site Plan indicates North is pointing 'down' (...

Why it matters: A fundamentally contradictory North arrow on the Civil Site Plan creates massive confusion regarding building orientation, setbacks, sun exposure, and coordinate geometry. A contractor could potentially lay out the building or site elements inverted if relying on the graphical North arrow instead...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct site orientation and revise the North arrow on the Civil Site Plan (C1) to correctly match the property line coordinate bearings and the Cover Sheet site map (where North is oriented up).

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct site orientation and revise the North arrow on the Civil Site Plan (C1) to correctly match the property line coordinate bearings and the Cover Sheet site map (where North is oriented up).

Summary: The drawing states Ss = 0.337g, S1 = 0.172g, and Soil Site Class D. Per ASCE 7-16 Table 11.4-1, for Site Class D with Ss = 0.337, linear interpolation between Ss ≤ 0.25 (Fa = 1.6) and Ss = 0.5 (Fa = 1.4) yields Fa ≈ 1.53. Per Table 11.4-2, for Site Class D with S1 = 0.172, interpolation between S1 ≤ 0.1 (Fv = 2.4) and S1 = 0.2 (Fv = 2.2) yields Fv ≈ 2.26. Applying Eqs. 11.4-1 through 11.4-4: SM...

Why it matters: The underestimated SDS (0.292 vs. 0.344, ~15% low) and SD1 (0.172 vs. 0.259, ~34% low) values result in reduced seismic design forces for all structural members. More critically, the Seismic Design Category should be D rather than C. SDC D triggers significantly more stringent requirements includ...

Suggested next step: Verify the site coefficients Fa and Fv used in calculating SDS and SD1. For the stated Site Class D with Ss = 0.337g, Fa should be approximately 1.53 per Table 11.4-1, and for S1 = 0.172g, Fv should be approximately 2.26 per Table 11.4-2. Recalculate SDS and SD1 per Sections 1...

RFI draft: Verify the site coefficients Fa and Fv used in calculating SDS and SD1. For the stated Site Class D with Ss = 0.337g, Fa should be approximately 1.53 per Table 11.4-1, and for S1 = 0.172g, Fv should be approximately 2.26 per Table 11.4-2. Recalcul...

Summary: The drawing details for the veneer attachment explicitly specify 'CORRUGATED MASONRY WALL TIE NAILED TO WALL STUDS PER STRUCTURAL SPECS' in both the Typical Foundation at Slab elevation (Detail 3) and the Veneer Control Joint detail (Detail 5). ASCE 7-16 Section 14.4.6.1 modifies TMS 402 Chapter 12 to add Section 12.2.2.11.1.1, which states: 'Corrugated sheet metal anchors shall not be used.' T...

Why it matters: Using prohibited corrugated sheet metal anchors for masonry veneer in a seismically designed structure is a significant life-safety concern. Corrugated anchors lack the stiffness and ductility needed to resist out-of-plane seismic forces on the veneer, risking veneer detachment during an earthqua...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the Seismic Design Category for the project and revise the masonry veneer anchorage details to comply with ASCE 7-16 Section 14.4.6.1 (TMS 402 Section 12.2.2.11.1.1). Corrugated sheet metal anchors shall not be used. Provide continuous single wire joint reinforc...

RFI draft: Please confirm the Seismic Design Category for the project and revise the masonry veneer anchorage details to comply with ASCE 7-16 Section 14.4.6.1 (TMS 402 Section 12.2.2.11.1.1). Corrugated sheet metal anchors shall not be used. Provide continu...

Summary: The Hold Down Schedule notes instruct the contractor that "WHERE STRAP TYPE HOLD DOWNS DO NOT ALIGN WITH HOLD DOWNS BELOW, PROVIDE DOUBLE STUDS AND EDGE NAIL PLYWOOD TO STUDS (FULL HEIGHT)". Relying on plywood edge nailing to dissipate concentrated overturning tension forces from misaligned strap hold-downs breaks the continuous tension load path. This explicitly violates ASCE 7-16 Section 12.1...

Why it matters: Overturning forces from shear walls manifest as large, concentrated tension loads in the chord studs. These forces must be transferred through a continuous load path (such as aligned hold-downs, straps, or specific transfer beams) directly to the foundation. If a load path is broken and transferr...

Suggested next step: Please revise the Hold Down Schedule notes to require a continuous tension tie for misaligned hold-downs. Provide specific detailing for transfer beams, offset straps, or other tension-carrying elements to ensure overturning tension forces maintain a continuous load path to th...

RFI draft: Please revise the Hold Down Schedule notes to require a continuous tension tie for misaligned hold-downs. Provide specific detailing for transfer beams, offset straps, or other tension-carrying elements to ensure overturning tension forces maintai...

Summary: ASCE 7-16 Section 13.5.10 requires egress stairs not part of the seismic force-resisting system to be detailed to accommodate seismic relative displacements, typically using 'Sliding connections with slotted or oversize holes'. The provided stair details prescribe fully rigid attachments at all supports: Detail 5 uses a 'SIMPSON A35 ANGLE AT PLATE ATTACHED TO EACH SIDE OF STRINGER', Detail 6 sp...

Why it matters: During a seismic event, inter-story drift will impose massive axial and shear forces onto rigidly connected egress stairs. Unless the stairs are specifically designed and integrated into the building's structural model (per the Section 13.5.10 Exception), standard wood framing, LSL stringers, and...

Suggested next step: Please confirm if the egress stairs are explicitly included in the building structural model per the ASCE 7-16 Section 13.5.10 Exception. If they are not modeled as part of the seismic force-resisting system, please revise the stringer connection details (Details 3, 5, and 6) ...

RFI draft: Please confirm if the egress stairs are explicitly included in the building structural model per the ASCE 7-16 Section 13.5.10 Exception. If they are not modeled as part of the seismic force-resisting system, please revise the stringer connection ...

Summary: Detail 11 illustrates a 'GIRDER / DRAG TRUSS CONNECTION' where the roof diaphragm is supposed to transfer lateral shear forces to a collector (girder truss) via 2x blocking. However, the detail shows a 'VENTING' gap cut completely through the sloped roof sheathing directly in front of this connection. This gap severs the structural sheathing, breaking the continuous load path from the diaphragm...

Why it matters: Collector elements (drag struts) must have an uninterrupted load path to physically drag in-plane lateral seismic and wind forces from the diaphragm into the lateral force-resisting system. A continuous venting gap at this critical transfer point renders the collector ineffective. This will resul...

Suggested next step: Please clarify how diaphragm shear is transferred to the girder truss across the continuous venting gap in Detail 11. Consider relocating the vent gap away from the drag truss line, or provide a revised detail showing positive shear transfer across the gap (e.g., periodic soli...

RFI draft: Please clarify how diaphragm shear is transferred to the girder truss across the continuous venting gap in Detail 11. Consider relocating the vent gap away from the drag truss line, or provide a revised detail showing positive shear transfer acros...

Summary: The window elevations on sheet A4.0 reference details 11/A6.0, 12/A6.0, 13/A6.0, 14/A6.0, and 15/A6.0 for the head, jamb, sill, and mullion conditions of window types A, B, and C. However, sheet A6.0 (ARCH DETAILS) only contains details numbered 1 through 10, covering fire extinguisher mounting, interior door framing, storefront details, and exterior door details. Details 11 through 15 for viny...

Why it matters: Without the referenced window installation details (head, jamb, sill, and mullion sections), the contractor cannot properly install any of the 20 vinyl windows (16 type A, 2 type B, and 2 type C per the window schedule). This gap in construction documentation will delay window installation and ma...

Suggested next step: Request the architect provide the missing window installation details 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 as referenced on the window elevations on sheet A4.0. Clarify whether these details should be added to sheet A6.0 or issued on a new detail sheet, and confirm what each detail number r...

RFI draft: Request the architect provide the missing window installation details 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 as referenced on the window elevations on sheet A4.0. Clarify whether these details should be added to sheet A6.0 or issued on a new detail sheet, and con...

Summary: The Architectural building sections detail a 'WELDED STEEL SUNSHADE' projecting from the right-side exterior wall at the 10'-0" elevation. Conversely, the Structural Floor Framing Plan details a substantial exterior wood deck at this location, specifying pressure-treated framing ('P.T. 2x6 HF #2'), pressure-treated perimeter beams, and load-bearing wood posts ('6x6 DF #1 POSTS').

Why it matters: This is a major coordination failure between the architectural and structural design packages. If the design intent is a light architectural steel sunshade, the structural wood deck and posts are unnecessary and incorrect. If a walkable exterior deck/balcony is intended, the architectural drawing...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the design intent for the exterior structure on the right elevation. Should this be a welded steel sunshade as shown on the Architectural building sections (A3.0), or a pressure-treated wood deck supported by 6x6 wood posts as detailed on the Structural Floor Fr...

RFI draft: Please clarify the design intent for the exterior structure on the right elevation. Should this be a welded steel sunshade as shown on the Architectural building sections (A3.0), or a pressure-treated wood deck supported by 6x6 wood posts as detai...

Summary: Sheet A1.3 (Roof Plan) states the total roof area as 2,416 SF in its Solar Ready Notes, while Sheet S5 (Roof Framing Plan) states the total roof area as 2,016 SF in its Roof Ventilation calculation. Both values explicitly refer to the total roof area of the same building, yet they differ by 400 SF. The A1.3 value is used to derive the required solar-ready zone area (0.40 × 2,416 SF = 967 SF), a...

Why it matters: This discrepancy directly impacts two separate code compliance calculations. If the correct roof area is 2,416 SF, then the ventilation calculation on S5 is undersized and the building may not meet OSSC Section 1202.2.1 ventilation requirements (the required vent area would increase from 968 sq. ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct total roof area for the building. Sheet A1.3 Solar Ready Notes state 2,416 SF while Sheet S5 Roof Ventilation notes state 2,016 SF. Please confirm the accurate value and revise the affected code compliance calculations (solar-ready zone area on A1.3 ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct total roof area for the building. Sheet A1.3 Solar Ready Notes state 2,416 SF while Sheet S5 Roof Ventilation notes state 2,016 SF. Please confirm the accurate value and revise the affected code compliance calculations (...

Summary: The project design references the Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC) on both the Roof Plan and Roof Framing Plan. However, the structural Roof Truss Notes explicitly require the truss drawings and calculations to be sealed by an engineer licensed in the State of California.

Why it matters: Submitting truss engineering sealed by an engineer licensed in California for a project under Oregon jurisdiction (OSSC) will typically lead to immediate rejection by the local building department, delaying fabrication and construction.

Suggested next step: Please confirm if the truss drawings and calculations must be sealed by a licensed engineer in Oregon to align with the OSSC code references, and revise the Roof Truss Notes on S5 to reflect the correct jurisdiction.

RFI draft: Please confirm if the truss drawings and calculations must be sealed by a licensed engineer in Oregon to align with the OSSC code references, and revise the Roof Truss Notes on S5 to reflect the correct jurisdiction.

Summary: The Architectural Second Floor Plan (A1.1) depicts an enclosed interior exit stairwell in the top right corner of the floor plan (near Grid 3). However, the Structural Floor Framing Plan (S3) for the same area specifies continuous '14" TJI 230 @16" O.C.' floor joists running completely through this grid area without any framed opening, headers, or trimmers to accommodate the stairwell.

Why it matters: If the floor is framed with continuous joists as drawn on the structural plans, there will be no opening for the stairway to connect the first and second floors. This will cause major field modifications, structural rework, and project delays once the discrepancy is discovered during construction.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the framing requirements for the stairwell located at the top right corner near Grid 3. The architectural plan (A1.1) shows an interior exit stairway, but the floor framing plan (S3) shows continuous joists without an opening. Please provide a revised floor fram...

RFI draft: Please clarify the framing requirements for the stairwell located at the top right corner near Grid 3. The architectural plan (A1.1) shows an interior exit stairway, but the floor framing plan (S3) shows continuous joists without an opening. Pleas...