Plan Review: 99 Issues Found

Summary: 13 index entries | 12 perfect matches | 0 mismatched | 1 missing Missing (1) — listed in drawing index but not found in the document: WSWH: - WSWH Simpson Stongwall 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: 1 missing, 0 mismatched out of 13 sheets

Summary: 35 index entries | 14 perfect matches | 7 mismatched | 14 missing Mismatched (7): EN.1: Expected: TITLE 24 ENERGY CALC. (EN.1) | Actual: T24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE (EN.1)(p4) EN.2: Expected: TITLE 24 ENERGY CALC. (EN.2) | Actual: T24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE (EN.2)(p5) A201: Expected: PROJECT RQTS (A201) | Actual: PROJECT GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (A201)(p6) A202: Expected: OUTLIN...

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: 14 missing, 7 mismatched out of 35 sheets

Summary: The FLOOR FRAMING PLAN indicates that the '2 CAR GARAGE' is an elevated floor framed with wood I-joists ('J12 @ 12" O.C.', which the JOIST SCHEDULE specifies as '11 7/8" TJI 230') and a subfloor of '1-1/8" CDX/OSB' per the DIAPHRAGM SCHEDULE. However, ASCE 7-16 Section 4.10.1 dictates that floors in passenger vehicle garages must be designed for a concentrated wheel load of 3,000 lb acting on a...

Why it matters: If constructed as drawn with wood sheathing directly over I-joists, the concentrated tire loads of a 3,000 lb passenger vehicle wheel will likely cause punching shear failure through the wood sheathing or localized crushing of the I-joist top flanges. This poses a critical structural failure risk...

Suggested next step: Please provide a revised floor framing and decking design for the 2 Car Garage that satisfies the 3,000 lb concentrated load requirement over a 4.5 in. by 4.5 in. area, as mandated by ASCE 7-16 Section 4.10.1. Verify if a structural concrete topping slab or an alternative heav...

RFI draft: Please provide a revised floor framing and decking design for the 2 Car Garage that satisfies the 3,000 lb concentrated load requirement over a 4.5 in. by 4.5 in. area, as mandated by ASCE 7-16 Section 4.10.1. Verify if a structural concrete toppi...

Summary: Details 18 (SHEARWALL PARALLEL TO BEAM / PERPENDICULAR TO BEAM) and 19 (HOLDOWN BOLT THROUGH HDR. 19) detail holdown anchor rods passing completely through horizontal wood members (floor beams and headers). The rods are anchored with plate washers at the bottom face of the beams. When the shearwall experiences overturning uplift, the anchor rod pulls upward against the bottom of the beam, placi...

Why it matters: Applying uplift forces to the bottom of wood members creates a severe weakness that compromises the shearwall's overturning resistance. ASCE 7 Section 12.1.3 mandates a continuous load path with adequate strength, and Section 14.5.1 requires conformance to the AWC NDS, which fundamentally prohibi...

Suggested next step: Please revise Details 18 and 19 to provide an uplift load path that avoids placing wood members in cross-grain tension. Consider using face-mounted strap ties, side-mounted holdowns that connect directly across the framing, or extending the anchor rods to bypass the horizontal...

RFI draft: Please revise Details 18 and 19 to provide an uplift load path that avoids placing wood members in cross-grain tension. Consider using face-mounted strap ties, side-mounted holdowns that connect directly across the framing, or extending the anchor...

Summary: Details 3 and 4 specify 'ROOF BN INTO FULL-DEPTH 2X BLKG. @ 4'-0" O.C.'. Boundary Nailing (BN) requires a continuous framing member or blocking at the edge of the diaphragm to transfer lateral shear forces. Spacing the boundary blocking at 4'-0" on center leaves the diaphragm edge unsupported and unfastened between the blocks. This physically prevents continuous boundary nailing and severs the ...

Why it matters: ASCE 7 Section 12.1.3 strictly requires a continuous load path to transfer all forces from the point of application to the final point of resistance. A discontinuous diaphragm boundary cannot effectively transfer edge chord and shear forces (violating ASCE 7 Section 12.10.1). This error will resu...

Suggested next step: Please revise Details 3 and 4 to provide a continuous framing member (such as a continuous ledger or continuous blocking) at the roof diaphragm boundary to properly receive the continuous 'ROOF BN', similar to the continuous 2x ledger properly detailed in Detail 6.

RFI draft: Please revise Details 3 and 4 to provide a continuous framing member (such as a continuous ledger or continuous blocking) at the roof diaphragm boundary to properly receive the continuous 'ROOF BN', similar to the continuous 2x ledger properly det...

Summary: The foundation plan dictates that solid footing lines indicate a curb and shows these curbs running continuously across exterior door locations. Furthermore, a '12" CURB MIN.' is specifically called out at the exact location of the Woodshop's exterior double doors.

Why it matters: Because no blockouts or curb depressions are detailed on the foundation plan, pouring a continuous curb (especially the 12" minimum curb at the Woodshop) will physically block the exterior doors. This will cause major access issues and require expensive concrete cutting if not coordinated prior t...

Suggested next step: Please provide curb depression/blockout details and dimensions on the foundation plan for all exterior doors. Clarify the '12" CURB MIN.' note at the Woodshop relative to the exterior double doors (tag 07) shown on the architectural plans.

RFI draft: Please provide curb depression/blockout details and dimensions on the foundation plan for all exterior doors. Clarify the '12" CURB MIN.' note at the Woodshop relative to the exterior double doors (tag 07) shown on the architectural plans.

Summary: The drawing's VHFHSZ notes (item d) and the illustrated summary both state that roof/attic/exterior wall vents may be 'protected by corrosion-resistant, noncombustible wire mesh with 1/16 inch to 1/8 inch openings or its equivalent' as a general alternative. However, the 2022 CBC Section 706A.2 requires all ventilation openings to be 'fully covered with Wildfire Flame and Ember Resistant vents ...

Why it matters: If the contractor installs simple wire mesh on eave soffits, gable end vents, foundation vents, or other ventilation openings instead of California State Fire Marshal-listed Wildfire Flame and Ember Resistant vents or ASTM E2886-tested WUI vents, the installation will fail building inspection in ...

Suggested next step: Request that the architect revise the VHFHSZ vent notes (item d) and the illustrated summary to require all ventilation openings to be fully covered with Wildfire Flame and Ember Resistant vents approved and listed by the California State Fire Marshal, or WUI vents tested to A...

RFI draft: Request that the architect revise the VHFHSZ vent notes (item d) and the illustrated summary to require all ventilation openings to be fully covered with Wildfire Flame and Ember Resistant vents approved and listed by the California State Fire Mar...

Summary: The LADBS Building Envelope Notes incorrectly state that safety glazing is required adjacent to stairways, ramps, and bottom landings only when the bottom exposed edge of the glazing is less than 36 inches above the walking surface. However, CBC Sections 2406.4.6 and 2406.4.7 define these locations as hazardous and require safety glazing when the bottom exposed edge is less than 60 inches (1524...

Why it matters: Specifying safety glazing only up to 36 inches leaves the critical 36-inch to 60-inch impact zone unprotected, creating a serious life-safety hazard for occupants navigating the stairs. This violation will result in failed inspections and require costly removal and replacement of non-safety glass...

Suggested next step: Please revise items (g) and (h) in the LADBS Building Envelope Notes to require safety glazing where the bottom exposed edge is less than 60 inches above the walking surface or landing, in compliance with CBC Sections 2406.4.6 and 2406.4.7.

RFI draft: Please revise items (g) and (h) in the LADBS Building Envelope Notes to require safety glazing where the bottom exposed edge is less than 60 inches above the walking surface or landing, in compliance with CBC Sections 2406.4.6 and 2406.4.7.

Summary: Spot elevations shown on the A310 Site Plan differ significantly from those on the A300 Topographic Survey, indicating uncoordinated elevation datums. For example, A310 notes an existing retaining wall on the northern boundary at '264.9 TW' and a first-floor slab at '265.0'. Conversely, A300 shows the exact same northern retaining wall with elevations ranging from '270.76 TW' to '271.42 TW', an...

Why it matters: A discrepancy of approximately 3 to 6.5 feet in site elevations implies that the architectural plans are utilizing an outdated datum or a legacy plot plan instead of the current survey data. This will cause major issues with grading, drainage, retaining wall design, and structural height limit ca...

Suggested next step: Please review the elevation data across the architectural site plans and update them to coordinate with the NAVD 1988 datum established in the current A300 Topographic Survey.

RFI draft: Please review the elevation data across the architectural site plans and update them to coordinate with the NAVD 1988 datum established in the current A300 Topographic Survey.

Summary: Section D (3/A512) depicts the upper floor as the Primary Bedroom (showing the vaulted ceiling and 'TV' wall recess) directly above a ground floor Kitchen area containing an island with a sink faucet. However, the First (A401) and Second (A402) Floor Plans show the Primary Bath located directly above the Kitchen. The space directly beneath the Primary Bedroom is the Breakfast area, which does n...

Why it matters: This vertical misalignment between the floor plans and building section creates critical conflicts for structural load paths (vaulted ceilings and floor framing) and plumbing routing for the kitchen island sink. If the island is placed under the Primary Bedroom, plumbing drops will not align with...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct vertical alignment for Section D (3/A512). Should the section be revised to show the Primary Bath above the Kitchen island, or do the floor plans need adjustment to locate the Kitchen under the Primary Bedroom?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct vertical alignment for Section D (3/A512). Should the section be revised to show the Primary Bath above the Kitchen island, or do the floor plans need adjustment to locate the Kitchen under the Primary Bedroom?

Summary: The TYP. WOOD STAIR DETAILS show rigid connections at both the top and bottom of the stair stringers. The 'STRINGER TO FLOOR BEAM' detail specifies a 'SIMPSON THA HANGER TO FIT FULLY NAILED TO STRINGER & BEAM,' which is a fixed connection. The 'STRINGER TO SLAB' detail specifies 'A35 AT EACH STRINGER' with '2X PT PLATE W/ (2) 0.145" DIA. X 3" SHOT PINS @ 12" O.C.,' and the 'STRINGER TO WOOD FLO...

Why it matters: In a multi-story wood-frame building, inter-story drift during a seismic event will impose lateral displacement on the stair assembly. Rigid connections at both the top and bottom of the stair stringers cause the stair to act as a diagonal brace between floors, potentially inducing unintended for...

Suggested next step: Please clarify how seismic relative displacement (DpI) is accommodated at the wood stair connections per ASCE 7-16 Section 13.5.10. The typical details show rigid connections (A35 clips, THA hangers fully nailed, shot pins into slab) at both top and bottom of the stair stringe...

RFI draft: Please clarify how seismic relative displacement (DpI) is accommodated at the wood stair connections per ASCE 7-16 Section 13.5.10. The typical details show rigid connections (A35 clips, THA hangers fully nailed, shot pins into slab) at both top a...

Summary: The drawing lists the wind Exposure Category as B. The project is located at 732 Patterson Place, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272, which is a coastal community bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west/southwest. Per ASCE 7-16 Section 26.7.3, Exposure B for buildings with a mean roof height ≤ 30 ft (this building is 27 ft) requires that Surface Roughness B prevail in the upwind direction for a dista...

Why it matters: Using Exposure B instead of at least Exposure C results in lower velocity pressure exposure coefficients (Kz/Kh), which directly reduces all calculated design wind pressures for both the MWFRS and C&C. This could lead to undersized structural members, connections, sheathing nailing, and cladding ...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer re-evaluate the wind exposure category per ASCE 7-16 Section 26.7.3, considering the coastal Pacific Palisades site location. At minimum, Exposure C should apply for the ocean-facing wind direction. Additionally, confirm whether Exposure D appli...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer re-evaluate the wind exposure category per ASCE 7-16 Section 26.7.3, considering the coastal Pacific Palisades site location. At minimum, Exposure C should apply for the ocean-facing wind direction. Additionally, co...

Summary: The structural design parameters explicitly state the soil classifications are "UNKNOWN". However, ASCE 7-16 Section 3.2.1 requires that if a geotechnical report is not used, lateral soil loads must be determined using Table 3.2-1. Table 3.2-1 dictates design lateral soil loads strictly based on the "Unified Soil Classification" and identifies certain soil types as unsuitable for backfill. By e...

Why it matters: Designing foundation and retaining elements without knowing the soil classification poses a major risk. The structure may fail to resist unquantified lateral or expansive soil pressures, or unsuitable backfill materials might be used. Building officials will likely reject the permit without a ver...

Suggested next step: Please provide the Unified Soil Classification for the site or a geotechnical report. Update the structural design parameters with the correct soil classification and ensure the foundation design accounts for the appropriate lateral soil loads and potential expansive soils in ...

RFI draft: Please provide the Unified Soil Classification for the site or a geotechnical report. Update the structural design parameters with the correct soil classification and ensure the foundation design accounts for the appropriate lateral soil loads and...

Summary: The roof framing plan identifies a "DRAG TRUSS" which the legend designates as a "PRE-FAB GIRDER OR HIP TRUSS BY OTHERS". The "ROOF TRUSS NOTES" delegate the design of the trusses and their connections to the truss manufacturer, instructing them to provide "Adequate design to prevent any lateral movement" and "Adequate design to sustain any vertical load." However, the plans do not specify the ...

Why it matters: Failing to provide the mandated collector forces to the delegated designer means the truss will likely only be designed for vertical loads and generic lateral stability, rather than the accumulated seismic axial forces required of a collector element. This severely breaks the continuous load path...

Suggested next step: Please provide the specific seismic axial forces for all designated drag trusses and the minimum code-required seismic lateral connection forces on the structural drawings so the truss manufacturer can properly design the delegated collector elements and their connections.

RFI draft: Please provide the specific seismic axial forces for all designated drag trusses and the minimum code-required seismic lateral connection forces on the structural drawings so the truss manufacturer can properly design the delegated collector eleme...

Summary: Detail 10 illustrates a 'ROOF SHEAR TRANSFER' where the high roof diaphragm connects to a '2X LEDGER' fastened to the interior face of vertical studs. The exterior wall is designated as a 'SHEAR WALL PER PLAN' with 'SW BOUNDARY NAILING'. However, the detail shows an empty stud cavity at the ledger elevation with no continuous horizontal blocking between the vertical studs. Without a continuous ...

Why it matters: ASCE 7 Section 12.1.3 requires a continuous load path to transfer all forces from the point of application to the final point of resistance. The lateral shear force transferred from the roof diaphragm into the vertical studs via the 2x ledger cannot continuously distribute into the exterior shear...

Suggested next step: Please clarify if continuous horizontal blocking should be added between the vertical studs at the elevation of the 2x ledger in Detail 10 to provide a solid continuous edge for the 'SW BOUNDARY NAILING' and complete the shear transfer load path (similar to the 'CONT. 4X BLKG....

RFI draft: Please clarify if continuous horizontal blocking should be added between the vertical studs at the elevation of the 2x ledger in Detail 10 to provide a solid continuous edge for the 'SW BOUNDARY NAILING' and complete the shear transfer load path (...