Peninsula Hospitality / F&B: 16 Issues Found

Summary: 12 indexed pages | 8 match | 0 minor mismatch | 1 mismatch | 3 missing Mismatch (1): T1.2: Expected: NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT PHOTOGRAPHS (T1.2) | Actual: House exterior and interior (Page 5)(p5) | Reason: The closest parsed page is a photo page, but it is labeled as house exterior/interior photos rather than neighborhood context...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 T1.0 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 1

Summary: The attic inspection photo (Pic15) clearly shows exposed electrical wiring draped and hanging loosely across framing members, which does not constitute installation per any recognized wiring method of NEC Chapter 3. NEC 300.1(A) requires that Article 300 covers general requirements for wiring methods and materials for all wiring installations....

Why it matters: Unsupported wiring draped across attic framing members is a serious safety hazard. It is susceptible to physical damage from foot traffic, stored items, or contact with other building components (such as the ductwork visible in the photo). This condition poses a fire risk and an electrical shock hazard, and would fail electrical inspection....

Suggested next step: Request that the electrician identify all wiring in the attic, verify conductor types, and re-install all wiring using a recognized Chapter 3 wiring method with proper support and securing as required by the NEC. Confirm whether the existing bare-bulb luminaire and its associated wiring circuit will be replaced or brought into full code...

RFI draft: Request that the electrician identify all wiring in the attic, verify conductor types, and re-install all wiring using a recognized Chapter 3 wiring method with proper support and securing as required by the NEC. Confirm whether the existing bare-bulb luminaire and its associated wiring circuit...

Summary: The Typical Kick-Out Flashing Detail shows the stucco wall system terminating 2' above the roof, but specifies 'BACKER ROD AND SEALANT' filling the gap at the bottom edge. This seals the 'MINIMUM GRADE D BUILDING PAPER' drainage plane behind the stucco, preventing any water that penetrates the cladding from weeping out to the exterior. This...

Why it matters: Trapping water behind the exterior plaster at the roof-to-wall intersection will result in severe water accumulation within the wall assembly. This will lead to wood decay, mold growth, and premature failure of the wall structure.

Suggested next step: Revise the kick-out flashing detail to remove the backer rod and sealant at the stucco termination. Provide a weep screed or maintain an open gap to ensure the building paper drainage plane can freely weep onto the step flashing.

RFI draft: Revise the kick-out flashing detail to remove the backer rod and sealant at the stucco termination. Provide a weep screed or maintain an open gap to ensure the building paper drainage plane can freely weep onto the step flashing.

Summary: The window schedule on sheet A3.1 lists W05 (2840SC, SINGLE CASEMENT-HL, Floor 2) and W06 (3040SC, SINGLE CASEMENT-HL, Floor 2) with blank EGRESS columns. By contrast, first-floor windows W01 and W02 are explicitly marked 'YES' for egress in the same schedule. However, the Proposed Left Side Elevation (E4) on sheet A5.1 tags both upper-level...

Why it matters: Egress windows are required by CRC R310 in sleeping rooms. Since W05 and W06 serve second-floor bedrooms, they must meet egress requirements for minimum net clear opening area (5.7 sq ft), height (24 in.), and width (20 in.). The discrepancy between the elevation keynote calling them egress windows and the schedule not designating them as such...

Suggested next step: Please clarify whether windows W05 and W06 are intended to be egress windows as indicated by keynote 6 ('NEW EGRESS WINDOW') on the Proposed Left Side Elevation (E4/A5.1). If so, please update the window schedule on A3.1 to mark the EGRESS column as 'YES' for both W05 and W06, and confirm the specified sizes (2840SC and 3040SC) meet the minimum...

RFI draft: Please clarify whether windows W05 and W06 are intended to be egress windows as indicated by keynote 6 ('NEW EGRESS WINDOW') on the Proposed Left Side Elevation (E4/A5.1). If so, please update the window schedule on A3.1 to mark the EGRESS column as 'YES' for both W05 and W06, and confirm the...

Summary: The window schedule on this sheet lists windows W05 (2840SC, Single Casement) and W06 (3040SC, Single Casement) on Floor 2 with the EGRESS column left blank. These windows serve two existing sleeping rooms (E. BEDROOM 11'-1' X 16'-1' and E. BEDROOM 13'-7' X 11'-2') on the proposed second-floor plan. The fact that W05 and W06 appear in the...

Why it matters: If the windows are ordered and installed without egress-compliant hardware and net-clear-opening verification, the second-floor bedrooms will lack code-required emergency escape and rescue openings. This will likely be caught during plan review or field inspection, causing permit delays or requiring window replacements after installation,...

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether windows W05 and W06 serving the second-floor bedrooms are intended as replacement windows. If so, clarify how emergency escape and rescue opening requirements per CRC R310.1 are met for both second-floor sleeping rooms, and update the window schedule EGRESS column accordingly. Per R310.5, replacement windows in existing...

RFI draft: Please confirm whether windows W05 and W06 serving the second-floor bedrooms are intended as replacement windows. If so, clarify how emergency escape and rescue opening requirements per CRC R310.1 are met for both second-floor sleeping rooms, and update the window schedule EGRESS column...

Summary: On A2.1, keynote 7 is shown at the 'E. BEDROOM 2' area and the demolition keynote states 'REMOVE PORTION OF EXISTING WALL AND REPLACE WITH NEW EGRESS WINDOW, SEE PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PLAN.' On A3.1, the corresponding proposed second-floor bedroom window is tagged 'W06.' The A3.1 window schedule includes an 'EGRESS' column; row 'W01' is explicitly...

Why it matters: This is a life-safety and permit-coordination problem. If the window is ordered or installed per the schedule instead of as an egress opening, the bedroom may not have the required emergency escape and rescue opening, which can lead to plan-check comments, field changes, or failed inspection.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the replacement second-floor bedroom window required by keynote 7 is intended to be an egress-compliant window. If yes, revise the proposed plan and window schedule to clearly identify that window as egress; if no, revise keynote 7 so the demolition note matches the proposed work.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the replacement second-floor bedroom window required by keynote 7 is intended to be an egress-compliant window. If yes, revise the proposed plan and window schedule to clearly identify that window as egress; if no, revise keynote 7 so the demolition note matches the...

Summary: The Typical Kick-Out Flashing Detail specifies 'CEMENT PLASTER SCRATCH COAT MIN. 3/4' MAX. 7/8' & FINISH COAT' over 'MIN. 20 GAUGE 1' GALVANIZED STEEL WOVEN WIRE FABRIC OR 2.5 lb/sq yd. EXPANDED METAL LATH.' This describes only two coats — a scratch coat and a finish coat — omitting the required brown (second) coat. Section 2512.1 of the 2022...

Why it matters: Omitting the brown coat from a three-coat stucco system would result in insufficient plaster thickness and compromised bond for the finish coat, reducing the assembly's weather resistance and durability. If constructed as detailed, the installation would fail inspection under CBC Section 2512.1 and ASTM C926, causing delays for rework,...

Suggested next step: Request the architect to revise the Typical Kick-Out Flashing Detail to specify a three-coat cement plaster system (scratch coat, brown coat, and finish coat) in compliance with CBC Section 2512.1. Clarify the required thickness for each coat per ASTM C926 and update the minimum/maximum total thickness callout accordingly.

RFI draft: Request the architect to revise the Typical Kick-Out Flashing Detail to specify a three-coat cement plaster system (scratch coat, brown coat, and finish coat) in compliance with CBC Section 2512.1. Clarify the required thickness for each coat per ASTM C926 and update the minimum/maximum total...

Summary: The Typical Kick-Out Flashing Detail specifies 'CEMENT PLASTER SCRATCH COAT MIN. 3/4' MAX. 7/8' & FINISH COAT' applied over 'MIN. 20 GAUGE 1' GALVANIZED STEEL WOVEN WIRE FABRIC OR 2.5 lb/sq yd. EXPANDED METAL LATH' (metal plaster base). Table 1404.2 of the 2022 CBC requires stucco or exterior cement plaster in three-coat work over metal plaster...

Why it matters: Applying stucco at less than the required minimum thickness over metal lath compromises weather protection and structural integrity of the exterior wall envelope. An inspector would likely reject the stucco application at this minimum 3/4' specification, requiring rework. Insufficient plaster thickness over metal lath can lead to cracking,...

Suggested next step: Request the architect to revise the Typical Kick-Out Flashing Detail to specify a minimum cement plaster thickness of 7/8' (0.875') exclusive of texture for three-coat work over metal plaster base, in compliance with Table 1404.2. Clarify whether the system is intended to be three-coat (scratch, brown, and finish) and update the detail callouts...

RFI draft: Request the architect to revise the Typical Kick-Out Flashing Detail to specify a minimum cement plaster thickness of 7/8' (0.875') exclusive of texture for three-coat work over metal plaster base, in compliance with Table 1404.2. Clarify whether the system is intended to be three-coat (scratch,...

Summary: The 'TYPICAL KICK-OUT FLASHING DETAIL' specifies a cement plaster system consisting of only a scratch coat and a finish coat applied over expanded metal lath or woven wire fabric. The building code explicitly requires that exterior cement plaster applied over metal lath or wire fabric lath must be not less than three coats (scratch, brown, and...

Why it matters: Applying only a two-coat cement plaster system over metal lath directly violates code requirements for exterior plaster. Without the intermediate brown coat, the stucco system will lack the required thickness and strength, significantly increasing the risk of cracking, water infiltration, premature cladding failure, and failed building inspections.

Suggested next step: Please clarify if a proprietary one-coat (two-coat) stucco system with an ICC-ES report is intended. If a traditional cement plaster system is being used, please revise the detail to specify a minimum three-coat application (scratch, brown, and finish coats) over the metal lath to comply with CBC Section 2512.1.

RFI draft: Please clarify if a proprietary one-coat (two-coat) stucco system with an ICC-ES report is intended. If a traditional cement plaster system is being used, please revise the detail to specify a minimum three-coat application (scratch, brown, and finish coats) over the metal lath to comply with...

Summary: The site drainage notes on the drawing set minimum grading slopes of 1% for unpaved areas and 0.5% for paved areas. Section R401.3 requires that 'The grade shall fall not fewer than 6 inches within the first 10 feet' from foundation walls, which equates to a 5% slope. Even under the exception for physical barriers, impervious surfaces within 10...

Why it matters: Inadequate drainage slopes adjacent to foundations can lead to water ponding near or entering the building, causing foundation damage, moisture intrusion, and potential structural deterioration. This would likely be caught during inspection and require re-grading, causing construction delays and added cost. The discrepancy between the stated...

Suggested next step: Request that the design team revise the site drainage notes to comply with R401.3. Specifically, unpaved areas within 10 feet of foundation walls should be sloped at a minimum of 5% (6 inches in 10 feet) away from the foundation, and impervious surfaces within 10 feet should be sloped at a minimum of 2% away from the building per the R401.3...

RFI draft: Request that the design team revise the site drainage notes to comply with R401.3. Specifically, unpaved areas within 10 feet of foundation walls should be sloped at a minimum of 5% (6 inches in 10 feet) away from the foundation, and impervious surfaces within 10 feet should be sloped at a...

Summary: The site drainage notes state '2. ALL PAVED AREAS SHALL BE GRADED TO SLOPE AT 0.5% OR MORE.' The proposed site plan also shows 'EXTEND CONCRETE PATHWAY' with an arrow pointing to a path 'running vertically along the left side of the building.' CRC R401.3 requires impervious surfaces within 10 feet of the building foundation to be sloped not...

Why it matters: If the hardscape is installed to 0.5% at the wall line, it can fail review or inspection and require demolition and re-sloping of completed paving near the foundation.

Suggested next step: Revise the paved-area drainage note and site grading so the concrete pathway and other impervious surfaces within 10 feet of the foundation are sloped not less than 2 percent away from the building.

RFI draft: Revise the paved-area drainage note and site grading so the concrete pathway and other impervious surfaces within 10 feet of the foundation are sloped not less than 2 percent away from the building.

Summary: The site drainage notes state '1. ALL UNPAVED AREAS SHALL BE GRADED TO SLOPE AT 1% OR MORE.' and '4. SLOPE SOILS AWAY FROM FOUNDATION.' CRC R401.3 requires grading away from foundation walls with not fewer than 6 inches of fall within the first 10 feet. A 1% slope provides only 1.2 inches of fall in 10 feet, so the note permits a...

Why it matters: If the site is graded per this note, the foundation drainage at the house can fail plan review or inspection and require regrading or added drainage measures after construction has started.

Suggested next step: Revise the site drainage notes so soil sloping away from foundations complies with CRC R401.3 rather than a 1% minimum.

RFI draft: Revise the site drainage notes so soil sloping away from foundations complies with CRC R401.3 rather than a 1% minimum.

Summary: The Typical Kick-Out Flashing Detail specifies 'BUILDING PAPER' as the underlayment layer beneath the 'ROOF SHINGLES'. Building paper is a wall-grade weather-resistive barrier. Section R905.1.1 requires roof underlayment for asphalt shingles to conform to specific roofing standards (such as ASTM D226, D1970, D4869, or D6757), which standard...

Why it matters: Using wall-grade building paper instead of an approved roofing underlayment compromises the roof's weather protection, significantly increasing the risk of tearing, water intrusion, and premature failure of the roof assembly.

Suggested next step: Revise the roof assembly callout to specify an approved roof underlayment that complies with Section R905.1.1 (e.g., asphalt-saturated felt or synthetic roof underlayment) instead of 'BUILDING PAPER'.

RFI draft: Revise the roof assembly callout to specify an approved roof underlayment that complies with Section R905.1.1 (e.g., asphalt-saturated felt or synthetic roof underlayment) instead of 'BUILDING PAPER'.

Summary: The Typical Kick-Out Flashing Detail specifies 'BUILDING PAPER' directly beneath the 'ROOF SHINGLES'. According to the building code, underlayment for asphalt shingles must conform to specific standards such as ASTM D226, D1970, D4869, or D6757. Building paper is intended for exterior walls and does not meet the material standards required for...

Why it matters: Installing building paper on a roof instead of an approved roofing underlayment (such as asphalt-saturated felt) compromises the roof's weather protection, potentially leading to moisture intrusion, deck rot, and voided shingle warranties.

Suggested next step: Please revise the typical kick-out flashing detail to specify an approved roof underlayment conforming to ASTM D226, D1970, D4869, or D6757 in place of 'BUILDING PAPER'.

RFI draft: Please revise the typical kick-out flashing detail to specify an approved roof underlayment conforming to ASTM D226, D1970, D4869, or D6757 in place of 'BUILDING PAPER'.

Summary: On the existing/demolition plan (A2.1), the 1st floor E. CLOSET adjacent to E. FAMILY is labeled 2'-1' X 6'-1'. On the proposed floor plan (A3.1), the same E. CLOSET in the same location is consistently labeled 2'-11' X 6'-1' across two overlapping tiles. Both plans use the 'E.' (existing) prefix for this closet and show the same 5068 opening...

Why it matters: A 10-inch discrepancy in closet width affects framing layout, the 5068 opening/door placement, and finish dimensions. If the closet walls are truly existing and unchanged, only one dimension can be correct. The contractor needs a definitive width to verify or frame the adjacent wall between the closet and the new N. HALL addition shown on the...

Suggested next step: Request the architect confirm the correct width of the E. CLOSET near E. FAMILY on the 1st floor. Clarify whether the closet width is 2'-1' (per A2.1) or 2'-11' (per A3.1), and whether the closet walls are being modified as part of the addition. Update drawings to show consistent dimensions and appropriate wall type hatching if a wall is being...

RFI draft: Request the architect confirm the correct width of the E. CLOSET near E. FAMILY on the 1st floor. Clarify whether the closet width is 2'-1' (per A2.1) or 2'-11' (per A3.1), and whether the closet walls are being modified as part of the addition. Update drawings to show consistent dimensions and...