Plan Review: 131 Issues Found

Summary: 27 index entries | 0 perfect matches | 6 mismatched | 21 missing Mismatched (6): 3: Expected: PLAN AND PROFILE: E COLORADO BOULEVARD (3) | Actual: IMPROVEMENTS OF N. SUNNYSLOPE AVE, E. WALNUT ST, & E. COLORADO BLVD (3)(p3) CS-1: Expected: COVER SHEET (CS-1) | Actual: PASADENA GENESIS (CS-1)(p12) IR-1: Expected: IRRIGATION PLAN (IR-1) | Actual: null (IR-1)(p13) IR-3: ...

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: 21 missing, 6 mismatched out of 27 sheets

Summary: 13 index entries | 0 perfect matches | 4 mismatched | 9 missing Mismatched (4): 1: Expected: TITLE SHEET (1) | Actual: TITLE SHEET (01)(p1) 2: Expected: TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY (2) | Actual: TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY (02)(p2) 3: Expected: EROSION CONTROL PLAN (3) | Actual: EROSION CONTROL PLAN (03)(p3) 4: Expected: DEMOLITION PLAN (4) | Actual: DEMOLITION PLAN (04)(p4) ...

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, 4 mismatched out of 13 sheets

Summary: 7 index entries | 0 perfect matches | 2 mismatched | 5 missing Mismatched (2): 2: Expected: TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY (2) | Actual: TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY (02)(p2) 3: Expected: EROSION CONTROL PLAN (3) | Actual: EROSION CONTROL PLAN (03)(p3) Missing (5) — listed in drawing index but not found in the document: Other: - 1 TITLE SHEET - 4 DEMOLITION PLAN - 5 PRECISE GRADI...

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: 5 missing, 2 mismatched out of 7 sheets

Summary: 5 index entries | 1 perfect matches | 3 mismatched | 1 missing Mismatched (3): S1: Expected: GENERAL NOTES (S1) | Actual: GENERAL NOTES (S-1)(p1) S2: Expected: FOUNDATION PLAN (S2) | Actual: FOUNDATION PLAN (S-2)(p2) S3: Expected: FOUNDATION PLAN (S3) | Actual: FOUNDATION PLAN (S-2)(p2) Missing (1) — listed in drawing index but not found in the document: Civil: ...

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, 3 mismatched out of 5 sheets

Summary: The Underground Fire Plan cover sheet (page 1) identifies the project address as '2925 EAST COLORADO BLVD,' while the Pasadena Water and Power fire flow test letter (page 3) consistently references '2915 East Colorado Boulevard' in the subject line, body text, and hydrant location description. This is a discrepancy in the street number.

Why it matters: The fire flow test data (static pressure of 101 psi, residual flow of 4639 gpm at 20 psi) forms the basis for the underground fire system hydraulic calculations. If the test was conducted for a different property, the pressure and flow data may not be valid for this project, invalidating the hydr...

Suggested next step: Clarify the correct project address—is it 2925 or 2915 East Colorado Boulevard? If the fire flow test was conducted for a different property, a new test for the correct address may be required. Update all drawings and supporting documents to reflect the correct address.

RFI draft: Clarify the correct project address—is it 2925 or 2915 East Colorado Boulevard? If the fire flow test was conducted for a different property, a new test for the correct address may be required. Update all drawings and supporting documents to refle...

Summary: General Structural Notes, Concrete Note 11 on S-1 specifies all caissons shall have f'c = 4,500 PSI. However, Detail 18 on SD1 (TYP. LIGTHT POLE FOOTING) specifies the 24" diameter concrete caisson at f'c = 3,000 PSI — a 1,500 PSI discrepancy. While Detail 18 states 'DEPUTY INSPECTION NOT REQUIRED'—which is permitted by the 'UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE' clause in Concrete Note 12—the discrepancy in ...

Why it matters: A plan checker will flag the contradictory concrete strength specification. If the caisson is poured at 3,000 PSI, it may be structurally inadequate if the engineer designed it for 4,500 PSI. This conflict must be resolved before permitting to avoid construction delays and potential stop-work ord...

Suggested next step: Clarify the required concrete compressive strength for the light pole caisson foundations: should f'c be 3,000 PSI per Detail 18/SD1 or 4,500 PSI per General Notes? Confirm if deputy inspection remains waived for these caissons given the discrepancy.

RFI draft: Clarify the required concrete compressive strength for the light pole caisson foundations: should f'c be 3,000 PSI per Detail 18/SD1 or 4,500 PSI per General Notes? Confirm if deputy inspection remains waived for these caissons given the discrepancy.

Summary: The note to contractor states that existing pole and fixtures are to be removed along the property right of way. However, the Luminaire Schedule includes 2 EXISTING 42W fixtures contributing 5,800 lumens each (total 84W) as part of the lighting design, and the photometric plan shows their light output factored into the foot-candle grid calculations. The Calculation Summary reports an average of...

Why it matters: During permitting, the plan checker will see a directive to remove existing fixtures contradicted by a photometric analysis that relies on them remaining in place. During construction, a contractor following the removal note would eliminate fixtures the design requires to meet its own illuminance...

Suggested next step: Clarify whether the 2 existing 42W fixtures shown on the plan are to remain as part of the final lighting design or are to be removed per the contractor note. If they are to be removed, the photometric analysis must be revised to reflect only the new and future fixtures, and a...

RFI draft: Clarify whether the 2 existing 42W fixtures shown on the plan are to remain as part of the final lighting design or are to be removed per the contractor note. If they are to be removed, the photometric analysis must be revised to reflect only the ...

Summary: The Underground Fire Calculations determine the final 'Residual Pressure' by subtracting the 'Cumulative Pressure Loss' directly from the 'Static Pressure' (101 psi) obtained from the Fire Flow Test (e.g., 101 - 27.52 = 73.48 psi).

Why it matters: Static pressure represents a zero-flow condition. Subtracting dynamic friction losses from a static pressure overstates the actual available system pressure. Hydraulic calculations must base the available pressure on the residual/flow pressure at the specific design flow rate. This fundamental me...

Suggested next step: Revise the hydraulic calculations to correctly apply system friction losses against the flow curve or residual pressure at the design flow rate, rather than the static pressure.

RFI draft: Revise the hydraulic calculations to correctly apply system friction losses against the flow curve or residual pressure at the design flow rate, rather than the static pressure.

Summary: Page 6 (Precise Grading Plan) displays an "EXIST. SAWTOOTH BUILDING TO BE REMODELED" at the northwest corner of the site along East Walnut Street. Conversely, Page 5 (Site Improvement Plan) shows this exact area as a different proposed layout without the building footprint, located alongside the "PROPOSED 2' WIDE PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY EASEMENT" and other site improvements.

Why it matters: If the existing Sawtooth Building remains and is remodeled per the grading plan, the alternative proposed layout shown in that area on the Site Improvement Plan cannot be constructed. This severe discrepancy directly affects the demolition scope, grading operations, and the overall architectural ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the existing sawtooth building along East Walnut Street is to remain and be remodeled (per the Precise Grading Plan) or if it is to be demolished to allow for the proposed site improvements (per the Site Improvement Plan). Update the plans to reflect a unifie...

RFI draft: Please clarify if the existing sawtooth building along East Walnut Street is to remain and be remodeled (per the Precise Grading Plan) or if it is to be demolished to allow for the proposed site improvements (per the Site Improvement Plan). Update...

Summary: The site wall details explicitly state: 'WALL ONLY DESIGNED FOR VEHICLE SURCHARGE.' However, Details 8 and 15 show a 24-foot tall light pole mounted directly to the site wall's pilaster and footing system. ASCE 7-16 Sections 29.1.1 and 29.4 mandate that supporting structures must be designed to resist wind forces acting on appurtenances and 'other structures' (such as light poles). Explicitly r...

Why it matters: A 24-foot light pole will induce substantial lateral shear and overturning moments into the retaining wall and its footing due to wind load. If the wall is genuinely designed 'only' for vehicle surcharge and lateral earth pressure, it lacks the necessary capacity to resist these wind forces. This...

Suggested next step: Clarify whether the site wall and footing design accounts for the wind loads (base shear and overturning moments) from the integrated 24-foot light poles. Revise or remove the 'WALL ONLY DESIGNED FOR VEHICLE SURCHARGE' note to confirm that all required wind loads per ASCE 7-16...

RFI draft: Clarify whether the site wall and footing design accounts for the wind loads (base shear and overturning moments) from the integrated 24-foot light poles. Revise or remove the 'WALL ONLY DESIGNED FOR VEHICLE SURCHARGE' note to confirm that all req...

Summary: Notes 3 and 4 explicitly state that the footings shown on the plan are "symbolic only" and instruct the contractor to determine footing transitions based on civil grades, apply the appropriate details, and evaluate surcharge loads from adjacent structures to "drop footings as required." This violates CBC Section 1603.1, which mandates that the construction documents themselves must explicitly s...

Why it matters: Delegating structural sizing, depth stepping, and surcharge evaluation to the contractor compromises building safety and circumvents the plan review process. The building official cannot verify the structural adequacy of a "symbolic" design. This will lead to permitting rejections, construction d...

Suggested next step: Please revise the foundation plan to clearly depict the exact size, section, reinforcement, and relative locations (including specific top and bottom elevations for all steps) of all footings and retaining walls. The Engineer of Record must perform all necessary calculations f...

RFI draft: Please revise the foundation plan to clearly depict the exact size, section, reinforcement, and relative locations (including specific top and bottom elevations for all steps) of all footings and retaining walls. The Engineer of Record must perfor...

Summary: Demolition Note 15 directs the contractor to "REMOVE EXISTING UTILITY", but it fails to specify that the service utility connections must be discontinued and capped. CBC Section 3303.6 strictly requires that utility connections be properly discontinued and capped in accordance with approved rules during demolition.

Why it matters: Instructing a demolition crew to remove utilities without explicitly requiring them to be safely discontinued and capped creates a severe life-safety hazard, increasing the risk of encountering live electrical wires, pressurized gas leaks, or flooding from uncapped water lines.

Suggested next step: Please revise Demolition Note 15 to explicitly state that service utility connections must be discontinued and capped in accordance with CBC Section 3303.6 and the requirements of the applicable governing authority.

RFI draft: Please revise Demolition Note 15 to explicitly state that service utility connections must be discontinued and capped in accordance with CBC Section 3303.6 and the requirements of the applicable governing authority.

Summary: The utility plan shows the 'PROPOSED CAR WASH' with a Finished Floor (FF) elevation of 710.50. However, the immediate adjacent private sewer cleanouts (Note 85) have rim elevations of 710.60 and 710.58. An oil/water separator (Note 86) is also located within this same adjacent utility cluster. Because these utility rims are set at finish surface grade and are located at higher elevations than t...

Why it matters: If the exterior grade is higher than the interior finished floor, surface water will pool and drain into the building. This can lead to flooding, structural undermining of the foundation, mold, and severe operational issues, resulting in mandatory rework of site grading, utilities, and potentiall...

Suggested next step: Please adjust the site grading plan and utility rim elevations to ensure that the impervious surfaces slope away from the car wash foundation at a minimum of 2 percent, or raise the Finished Floor elevation of the car wash to provide proper drainage compliance.

RFI draft: Please adjust the site grading plan and utility rim elevations to ensure that the impervious surfaces slope away from the car wash foundation at a minimum of 2 percent, or raise the Finished Floor elevation of the car wash to provide proper draina...

Summary: The drawings show conflicting vehicular live load criteria for the retention system. The main CMP assembly is designed for 'LOADING: H20', while the manhole cap detail specifies a heavier 'DESIGN LOAD HS25' and requires an 'HS-25 ACCESS CASTING'. By designating the access casting for HS-25, the intended use clearly expects heavier traffic. Designing the underlying retention structure for only H...

Why it matters: H20 loading represents a significantly lower gross vehicle weight than HS-25 loading. If the site experiences HS-25 traffic (such as heavy car carrier trucks for the dealership), the H20-rated underground pipe structure could fail or collapse. This is a severe life-safety risk that would result i...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the maximum expected vehicular live load for the intended use of this site. If HS-25 loading is required, please upgrade the CMP retention system assembly design from H20 to HS-25 to ensure the entire underground structure can safely support the expected traffic...

RFI draft: Please confirm the maximum expected vehicular live load for the intended use of this site. If HS-25 loading is required, please upgrade the CMP retention system assembly design from H20 to HS-25 to ensure the entire underground structure can safel...

Summary: The Fire Master Plan Scope of Work Statement describes 'THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING, EXISTING CONCRETE HARDSCAPE, AND AC PAVEMENT.' The only building on the subject property labeled as existing on the Fire Master Plan site plan is the 'EXISTING BUILDING' in the northwest corner of the site (shown with a 137.70' dimension). However, the Foundation Plan on sheet S-...

Why it matters: This conflict has significant implications for permitting and construction. If the existing building is to be demolished, the structural foundation plan should not include remodeling details or finished floor elevations for it, and the fire access plan should not need to account for fire protecti...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended disposition of the existing sawtooth building in the northwest corner of the site. Is this building to be demolished as stated in the Fire Master Plan Scope of Work, or remodeled as indicated on the Structural Foundation Plan (S-2)? Please coordinat...

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended disposition of the existing sawtooth building in the northwest corner of the site. Is this building to be demolished as stated in the Fire Master Plan Scope of Work, or remodeled as indicated on the Structural Foundatio...