Peninsula Medical Office TI: 9 Issues Found

Summary: 9 indexed pages | 2 match | 6 minor mismatch | 0 mismatch | 1 missing Minor Mismatch (6): A-2: Expected: EXISTING 1ST FLOOR FLOOR LAYOUT PLAN (A-2) | Actual: EXISTING 1ST FLOOR LAYOUT PLAN (A-2)(p2) | Reason: Same sheet number and same title except for an extra repeated 'FLOOR' in the index entry. A-3: Expected: EXISTING 2ND...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 A-1 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX, page 1

Summary: The drawing states both the ultimate design wind speed (Vult) and the nominal/allowable stress design wind speed (Vasd) as the same value of 92 MPH. By definition per ASCE 7 and CBC, Vasd = V × √0.6 (approximately 0.775 × V). Therefore, V and Vasd can never be equal. If 92 MPH is the correct Vasd, then V should be approximately 119 MPH. If 92...

Why it matters: Incorrect wind speed values directly affect the design of every wind-resisting structural element and exterior component/cladding. If V is understated, the building and its components could be under-designed for wind loads, creating a safety issue. If Vasd is overstated, it may also lead to misapplication of component design wind pressures....

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer of record to clarify and correct the wind design data. Provide the correct basic design wind speed V (in mph) per ASCE 7 Figures 26.5-1A through 26.5-1D for the project location and risk category, and separately provide the correct allowable stress design wind speed Vasd = V × √0.6. Each value must be distinctly...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer of record to clarify and correct the wind design data. Provide the correct basic design wind speed V (in mph) per ASCE 7 Figures 26.5-1A through 26.5-1D for the project location and risk category, and separately provide the correct allowable stress design wind...

Summary: The North-West and North-East Elevations both show a floor-to-floor dimension of 7'-6' (90 inches) from F.F. to 2nd Floor at the parking level. Exterior doors are explicitly shown at this level on both elevations. The Existing Balcony Section shows the 2nd floor assembly above the parking level consists of 2x10 @16'O.C. joists (9.25 inches...

Why it matters: Doors at the parking level physically cannot achieve the code-required 80-inch clear opening height given the explicit floor-to-floor dimension and floor assembly depth shown on the drawings. This geometric impossibility would be identified during plan review and could require increasing the floor-to-floor height, modifying the floor assembly...

Suggested next step: Clarify how exterior doors at the parking level (where the floor-to-floor height is dimensioned at 7'-6') will achieve the minimum 80-inch clear opening height required by CBC Section 1010.1.1, given the 2x10 floor framing and sheathing assembly shown in the Existing Balcony Section. Provide the actual clear height at door locations and confirm...

RFI draft: Clarify how exterior doors at the parking level (where the floor-to-floor height is dimensioned at 7'-6') will achieve the minimum 80-inch clear opening height required by CBC Section 1010.1.1, given the 2x10 floor framing and sheathing assembly shown in the Existing Balcony Section. Provide the...

Summary: The drawing explicitly lists 'Sd1 =N/A' in the seismic design criteria. CBC Section 1603.1.5 item 5 requires the design spectral response acceleration parameters SDS and SD1 to be shown on the construction documents. The code states this information 'shall be shown, regardless of whether seismic loads govern the design of the lateral...

Why it matters: SD1 is critical for determining the seismic design category, the design response spectrum, period-dependent seismic forces, and non-structural component design. The project is in a high seismic zone (San Francisco Bay area, Ss=2.153g, S1=0.895g), making SD1 essential. Without SD1, the seismic design category cannot be fully verified, which...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer of record to provide the design spectral response acceleration parameter SD1 as required by CBC Section 1603.1.5. Given the high S1 value (0.895g) and default Site Class D, a site-specific ground motion hazard analysis may be required per ASCE 7-22 to determine Fv and thus SD1. Alternatively, the engineer should...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer of record to provide the design spectral response acceleration parameter SD1 as required by CBC Section 1603.1.5. Given the high S1 value (0.895g) and default Site Class D, a site-specific ground motion hazard analysis may be required per ASCE 7-22 to determine Fv...

Summary: The 'EXISTING BALCONY SECTION' shows 'UNIT' directly above 'PARKING.' The floor assembly between those spaces is labeled '2x10 @16\'O.C.,' and adjacent supporting members are called out as '3-2x6' and '6x6 POST,' which are conventional wood framing elements. The separate balcony projection at the left side of the section is also labeled with...

Why it matters: The visual issue is the use of conventional light wood framing at the unit-over-parking condition. The balcony joist callout should be understood as adjacent balcony framing, not the primary evidence for the separation assembly; the main concern is that the section overall still does not show a clearly CBC 510.4-compliant unit-over-parking...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the intended code path for the unit-over-parking condition and revise the section to show CBC 510.4-compliant parking and floor construction, or provide the approved basis for why Section 510.4 does not apply.

RFI draft: Please confirm the intended code path for the unit-over-parking condition and revise the section to show CBC 510.4-compliant parking and floor construction, or provide the approved basis for why Section 510.4 does not apply.

Summary: Sheet A-5 Existing Balcony Section shows the existing built-up beam at the balcony-to-building connection as '3-2x6' (triple 2×6). However, sheet S2 Second Floor Framing Plan repeatedly identifies the same existing built-up beam running along the balcony/building interface as '(E) (3) 2x8 TO REMAIN' (triple 2×8). These two callouts describe the...

Why it matters: The depth of this existing beam directly affects load capacity calculations for the balcony repair and sistering work. If the beam is actually a triple 2×6 rather than a triple 2×8, it has significantly less section modulus and moment capacity, which may impact the adequacy of the existing framing to support the new guardrail loads and the...

Suggested next step: Request the engineer clarify the actual size of the existing built-up beam at the balcony-to-building connection. Sheet A-5 (Existing Balcony Section) calls it 3-2×6, while sheet S2 (Second Floor Framing Plan) calls it (E) (3) 2×8 TO REMAIN. Which dimension is correct? If the beam is smaller than assumed in the structural design, confirm...

RFI draft: Request the engineer clarify the actual size of the existing built-up beam at the balcony-to-building connection. Sheet A-5 (Existing Balcony Section) calls it 3-2×6, while sheet S2 (Second Floor Framing Plan) calls it (E) (3) 2×8 TO REMAIN. Which dimension is correct? If the beam is smaller...

Summary: Drawing sheet S2, Note 6 states replacement joists shall be 'PRESSURE-TREATED DF-L NO.2 OR BETTER.' However, the Structural Wood notes on the specification sheet S0.0 explicitly require joists to be graded 'NO. 1.' No. 2 is a lower lumber grade than No. 1, meaning a contractor following the drawing note could install joists with a grade that...

Why it matters: Using No. 2 grade lumber where No. 1 is specified could result in reduced allowable bending stress and stiffness values for the replacement balcony joists. Given that these are cantilevered balcony joists subject to a 60 PSF live load, the lower grade could compromise the structural adequacy of the repaired framing. This discrepancy could be...

Suggested next step: Request clarification from the Engineer of Record on the required lumber grade for replacement balcony joists. Specifically, confirm whether the replacement joists shall be Douglas Fir-Larch No. 1 per the Structural Wood general notes, or if DF-L No. 2 or Better as stated in Drawing Note 6 is acceptable, and whether the structural design has...

RFI draft: Request clarification from the Engineer of Record on the required lumber grade for replacement balcony joists. Specifically, confirm whether the replacement joists shall be Douglas Fir-Larch No. 1 per the Structural Wood general notes, or if DF-L No. 2 or Better as stated in Drawing Note 6 is...

Summary: Sheet S2 contains a boxed note at the balcony framing area stating that existing joists found to be 'ROTTEN OR DAMAGED' shall be removed and replaced 'WITH A NEW JOIST OF THE SAME SIZE, GRADE, AND SPECIFICATIONS AS THE EXISTING.' Sheet SD1, Detail 3 contains a boxed note on the same subject that only triggers replacement if the joist is...

Why it matters: During construction, a contractor referencing only the SD1 detail may not replace a joist that is damaged but not rotten, potentially leaving a structurally compromised member in place and merely sistering to it. Additionally, without the replacement specification on the detail sheet, there is ambiguity about what material to use for any...

Suggested next step: Request the engineer clarify the joist replacement criteria and ensure consistent language on both S2 and SD1. Specifically: (1) Should damaged but not rotten joists also be replaced, as stated on S2? (2) Should the replacement specification (same size, grade, and specifications as existing) be added to the SD1 Detail 3 note to match the S2 note?

RFI draft: Request the engineer clarify the joist replacement criteria and ensure consistent language on both S2 and SD1. Specifically: (1) Should damaged but not rotten joists also be replaced, as stated on S2? (2) Should the replacement specification (same size, grade, and specifications as existing) be...

Summary: Details 2 and 3 on sheet SD1 call out '(N) 2x P.T. RIM JOIST PER PLAN w/ (2) 16d NAILS @ EACH JOIST,' specifying only two 16d nails at each joist-to-rim-joist connection. The project specification nailing schedule, derived from CBC Table 2304.10.2 Item 28, requires 3-16d common nails (end nail) for a joist to band joist or rim joist connection....

Why it matters: The nailing schedule on sheet S0.0 represents code-minimum fastening per CBC Table 2304.10.2, and Structural Wood Note 8 states minimum nailing shall conform to that table. Under-nailing the rim joist connection reduces the capacity of the joist-to-rim transfer, which is especially critical at a cantilevered balcony where the rim joist collects...

Suggested next step: Request the Engineer of Record confirm whether the rim joist nailing at each joist should be increased to (3) 16d common nails per CBC Table 2304.10.2, Item 28, or provide justification for the reduced nailing shown in the details.

RFI draft: Request the Engineer of Record confirm whether the rim joist nailing at each joist should be increased to (3) 16d common nails per CBC Table 2304.10.2, Item 28, or provide justification for the reduced nailing shown in the details.