Plan Review: 247 Issues Found

Summary: 49 index entries | 39 perfect matches | 0 mismatched | 10 missing Missing (10) — listed in drawing index but not found in the document: Structural: - S1.01D LEVEL 1 - FOUNDATION DIMENSION PLAN - S1.02 LEVEL 2 - SLAB PLAN - S1.03 LEVEL 3 - SLAB PLAN - S1.03L LEVEL 3 LOADING PLAN - S1.04 LEVEL 3 - FRAMING PLAN - S1.04S LEVEL 3 - SHEARWALL PLAN - S1.05 LEVEL 4...

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: 10 missing, 0 mismatched out of 49 sheets

Summary: 11 index entries | 7 perfect matches | 1 mismatched | 3 missing Mismatched (1): C1.01: Expected: SURVEY (FOR REFERENCE ONLY) (C1.01) | Actual: SURVEY (FOR REFERENCE ONLY) (C1.00)(p3) Missing (3) — listed in drawing index but not found in the document: Civil: - C1.10 EROSION CONTROL AND DEMOLITION PLAN - C1.20 ROUGH GRADING PLAN - C1.30 GRADING, PAVING, AND HORIZONTAL...

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: 3 missing, 1 mismatched out of 11 sheets

Summary: Note 4 on the "REINF SPLICE & DEVELOPMENT LENGTH SCHEDULE" states that Class A lap splices may be used where "REINFORCEMENT PROVIDED IS LESS THAN HALF OF THE REINFORCEMENT REQUIRED". This is fundamentally backward and contradictory to ACI 318. Splice classifications reflect excess reinforcement; Class A splices are only permitted when the provided reinforcement is at least twice the required ar...

Why it matters: If the reinforcement provided is less than half of what is required, the structural member is already severely deficient and unable to carry the design loads. Instructing contractors to use a shorter lap splice under these highly stressed conditions compounds the error, greatly increasing the ris...

Suggested next step: Note 4 on the 1/S5.01 splice schedule states Class A lap splices may be used when reinforcement provided is 'LESS THAN HALF' of that required. Please confirm this is a typo that should state 'AT LEAST TWICE' (or 'MORE THAN DOUBLE') the reinforcement required, and issue a revis...

RFI draft: Note 4 on the 1/S5.01 splice schedule states Class A lap splices may be used when reinforcement provided is 'LESS THAN HALF' of that required. Please confirm this is a typo that should state 'AT LEAST TWICE' (or 'MORE THAN DOUBLE') the reinforceme...

Summary: Detail 3 is titled 'TOP OF SHEARWALL' but specifies a connection with '(2) LAYERS OF 1/8" BEARING PAD WITH SMOOTH TROWELED CONCRETE SURGACE' between the wall and the slab. A bearing pad creates a slip plane that prevents horizontal shear transfer. ACI 318 Section 18.10.1.1 and 18.10.2.1 require special structural walls to act as part of the seismic-force-resisting system, meaning reinforcement ...

Why it matters: If constructed as detailed, the shear walls will be isolated from the floor diaphragm. This prevents the lateral load transfer required for a shear wall to function, leading to a complete structural failure of the building's lateral force-resisting system during a seismic or high wind event. An i...

Suggested next step: Confirm if the bearing pad and smooth troweled surface in Detail 3 'TOP OF SHEARWALL' were included in error. Provide a revised, code-compliant detail that omits the bearing pad and ensures monolithic horizontal shear transfer via a roughened surface and proper shear friction.

RFI draft: Confirm if the bearing pad and smooth troweled surface in Detail 3 'TOP OF SHEARWALL' were included in error. Provide a revised, code-compliant detail that omits the bearing pad and ensures monolithic horizontal shear transfer via a roughened surf...

Summary: Detail 7 specifies an 'EMBED PL1/2x8x8' with '(4) 3/4" DIA x 0'-4" NELSON STUDS @ 8" GA'. Specifying an 8" gauge (spacing) for the studs on a plate that is exactly 8" wide means the centerlines of the studs will fall exactly on the outer edges of the steel plate (0" steel edge distance). Because the studs have a 3/4" diameter, half of each stud's shaft would physically overhang the edge of the ...

Why it matters: Nelson stud arc welding requires a sufficient steel edge distance around the stud to accommodate the ceramic ferrule and properly contain the molten weld pool. A stud centered exactly on the edge of a plate is physically impossible to weld. This severe detailing error will halt fabrication of the...

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail 7 to either increase the embed plate dimensions (e.g., to 10"x10" or 12"x12") to provide adequate steel edge distance for welding the studs, or reduce the stud gauge to fit properly within the 8"x8" plate.

RFI draft: Please revise Detail 7 to either increase the embed plate dimensions (e.g., to 10"x10" or 12"x12") to provide adequate steel edge distance for welding the studs, or reduce the stud gauge to fit properly within the 8"x8" plate.

Summary: Note 4 on the Reinf Splice & Development Length Schedule states that Class 'A' lap splices may be used where "REINFORCEMENT PROVIDED IS LESS THAN HALF OF THE REINFORCEMENT REQUIRED". This is definitively incorrect and unsafe. Permitting a Class A splice when a section is severely under-reinforced (providing less than half the required steel) prevents the reinforcement from fully developing its ...

Why it matters: Using a lap splice when the structural element does not even possess the minimum required reinforcement capacity will cause premature bond failure and catastrophic loss of structural integrity at the splice location.

Suggested next step: Please revise Note 4 to state that Class 'A' lap splices may only be used when the reinforcement provided is at least twice the reinforcement required by analysis, correcting the dangerous "less than half" language.

RFI draft: Please revise Note 4 to state that Class 'A' lap splices may only be used when the reinforcement provided is at least twice the reinforcement required by analysis, correcting the dangerous "less than half" language.

Summary: Detail 7 specifies an "EMBED PL1/2x8x8" (an 8-inch by 8-inch plate) with "(4) 3/4\" DIA x 0'-4\" NELSON STUDS @ 8\" GA". Specifying an 8-inch gage (center-to-center spacing) on an 8-inch wide plate places the centers of the studs exactly on the outer edges of the plate, resulting in a 0-inch edge distance. This directly contradicts Section J4.2, which requires the distance from the center of a ...

Why it matters: A 0-inch edge distance means half of the stud (3/8") overhangs the plate boundary, making the assembly impossible to properly weld and manufacture. It also provides zero shear rupture capacity toward the edge, severely compromising the storefront attachment to the concrete slab and potentially ca...

Suggested next step: Revise Detail 7 to either increase the embed plate dimensions (e.g., to 11x11 inches) to provide the minimum 1.5d (1.125") edge distance required for the 3/4" studs, or reduce the stud gage to 5.5 inches or less to fit securely within the 8x8 plate.

RFI draft: Revise Detail 7 to either increase the embed plate dimensions (e.g., to 11x11 inches) to provide the minimum 1.5d (1.125") edge distance required for the 3/4" studs, or reduce the stud gage to 5.5 inches or less to fit securely within the 8x8 plate.

Summary: The framing plan and notes dictate flush-framed joists and beams. Beam B09 is specified as a (2)2x10 (9.25" deep) and is shown framing into supporting beam B02 using a 'SIMPSON HUC210-2' face-mount hanger. However, the Wood Beam Schedule specifies B02 as a significantly shallower member: 'LVL (3)1.75x5.5' (5.5" deep). Because the supporting beam (5.5") is shallower than the beam it supports (9....

Why it matters: This physically unbuildable connection detail prevents the required transfer of gravity and seismic forces to the primary structural supports. If left uncorrected, framers will be unable to install the hanger as specified, leading to RFI delays, unapproved field modifications, or a severely compr...

Suggested next step: Please review the depth of beam B02 in the Wood Beam Schedule. A 5.5" deep beam cannot support a 9.25" deep beam (B09) using the specified flush-mount hanger. Should B02 be upsized to a depth equal to or greater than the incoming framing (e.g., a 9.25" LVL) to allow for proper...

RFI draft: Please review the depth of beam B02 in the Wood Beam Schedule. A 5.5" deep beam cannot support a 9.25" deep beam (B09) using the specified flush-mount hanger. Should B02 be upsized to a depth equal to or greater than the incoming framing (e.g., a ...

Summary: The "TEMPORARY SHORING AND BRACING" note states the contractor shall "AT HIS DISCRETION EMPLOY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER" for temporary shoring design. Additionally, the "SHORING" note indicates this shoring is required to "SUPPORT ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES". However, CBC 3307.2 and 3307.2.1 explicitly mandate that excavation retention systems used to support and protect adjacent structu...

Why it matters: Allowing a contractor to bypass a registered design professional for excavation retention systems threatens the structural stability of adjoining properties. Improper shoring design can lead to catastrophic collapse, severe safety hazards, extensive property damage, and immediate stop-work orders...

Suggested next step: Please revise the "TEMPORARY SHORING AND BRACING" note to mandate that any temporary shoring or excavation retention system used to support adjacent structures shall be designed by a registered design professional, complying with CBC 3307.2.1.

RFI draft: Please revise the "TEMPORARY SHORING AND BRACING" note to mandate that any temporary shoring or excavation retention system used to support adjacent structures shall be designed by a registered design professional, complying with CBC 3307.2.1.

Summary: The schedule 'TENSION DEVELOPMENT AND LAP SPLICE LENGTH' on drawing S5.21 lists multiple lap splice lengths that fall short of the absolute code minimum for Allowable Stress Design. Specifically, the schedule permits a 12-inch or 13-inch lap for #4 bars (where 40 bar diameters is 20 inches) and laps as short as 13 inches for #5 bars (where 40 bar diameters is 25 inches). CBC 2107.2.1 dictates t...

Why it matters: Providing lap splices shorter than 40 bar diameters fails to adequately develop the required tensile strength in the reinforcement, leading to a severely compromised structural masonry wall under lateral and gravity loads. This schedule will cause widespread non-conformance during construction an...

Suggested next step: Please revise the Tension Development and Lap Splice Length schedule (1/S5.21) to ensure all specified lap lengths meet or exceed the absolute minimum of 40 bar diameters as required by CBC Section 2107.2.1.

RFI draft: Please revise the Tension Development and Lap Splice Length schedule (1/S5.21) to ensure all specified lap lengths meet or exceed the absolute minimum of 40 bar diameters as required by CBC Section 2107.2.1.

Summary: Detail 3 on the drawings specifies an '8" CMU WALL WITH # 4 AT 12" OC EACH WAY CENTERED IN WALL'. Standard concrete masonry units operate on an 8-inch dimensional module (cores and mortar joints occur at 8-inch intervals). Specifying both vertical and horizontal reinforcement at 12 inches on center will cause the reinforcing bars to repeatedly align with the solid cross webs and face shells of ...

Why it matters: The contractor will be unable to install the reinforcement at the specified 12" spacing without extensively saw-cutting the concrete blocks, which would compromise their structural integrity. To build the wall, the contractor will likely be forced to alter the spacing in the field to 8" or 16" on...

Suggested next step: Please revise the vertical and horizontal reinforcement spacing for the RMW8 retaining wall to a multiple of 8" (e.g., 8" OC or 16" OC) to properly align with standard CMU core and coursing dimensions.

RFI draft: Please revise the vertical and horizontal reinforcement spacing for the RMW8 retaining wall to a multiple of 8" (e.g., 8" OC or 16" OC) to properly align with standard CMU core and coursing dimensions.

Summary: The floor plan shows Elevators A (342) and B (343) opening directly into Corridor A (300) without an enclosed elevator lobby separating the hoistway doors from the corridor. Keynote 621 indicates that a "SMOKE CONTAINMENT SYSTEM" is being used at the elevator doors. However, Section 3006.3 explicitly requires the hoistway opening protection to be provided by an enclosed elevator lobby separated...

Why it matters: Relying on a smoke containment system instead of an enclosed elevator lobby contradicts the explicit requirements of Section 3006.3. If the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) enforces the enclosed lobby requirement as written, the design will be rejected. This would necessitate a major architect...

Suggested next step: Clarify the code basis for utilizing a smoke containment system (Keynote 621) in lieu of an enclosed elevator lobby. If this is an approved alternate means of compliance, please provide the approved code modification. Otherwise, revise the floor plans to provide a compliant en...

RFI draft: Clarify the code basis for utilizing a smoke containment system (Keynote 621) in lieu of an enclosed elevator lobby. If this is an approved alternate means of compliance, please provide the approved code modification. Otherwise, revise the floor p...

Summary: CBC Section 3002.1 requires hoistway enclosures to be compliant shaft enclosures. Keynote 160 explicitly requires a "2-HR FIRE RESISTIVE ELEVATOR SHAFT". However, the floor plan shows the elevator shaft enclosed by wall type "WG-2". General Note 9 states that corridor walls and walls separating dwelling units are "FIRE PARTITION"s (which are 1-hour rated per CBC 709.0), and these are tagged as ...

Why it matters: Providing a 1-hour rated wall instead of the required 2-hour rated wall for an elevator hoistway will lead to a failure in fire containment between floors. This will result in failed plan reviews and costly architectural modifications if built.

Suggested next step: Please revise the wall type designation for the elevator shaft enclosure from WG-2 to a 2-hour fire-resistive construction assembly (such as WQ-2 used at the stairwells) to comply with Keynote 160 and hoistway enclosure requirements.

RFI draft: Please revise the wall type designation for the elevator shaft enclosure from WG-2 to a 2-hour fire-resistive construction assembly (such as WQ-2 used at the stairwells) to comply with Keynote 160 and hoistway enclosure requirements.

Summary: Detail WY specifies a 2-hour exterior bearing wall (Type WY Partition) that uses standard interior gypsum wallboard on the exterior face without an approved weather covering. The detail utilizes GA File WP 4135 (an interior partition assembly), explicitly calling out "2 LAYERS OF 5/8" TYPE X GYPSUM BOARD" on the "EXT" (exterior) side with "NO PLASTER". CBC 2508.2 strictly prohibits the use of g...

Why it matters: Standard interior gypsum wallboard is not designed to withstand exterior weather conditions or moisture. Using it as the unclad exterior face of the building envelope will result in rapid material degradation, mold growth, water intrusion, and the complete loss of the wall's structural integrity ...

Suggested next step: Please revise the Type WY partition detail to provide an approved exterior weather covering (e.g., exterior cement plaster, siding) over exterior-grade sheathing and a weather-resistive barrier, complying with CBC 1404.2. Update the wall assembly to achieve the required 2-hour...

RFI draft: Please revise the Type WY partition detail to provide an approved exterior weather covering (e.g., exterior cement plaster, siding) over exterior-grade sheathing and a weather-resistive barrier, complying with CBC 1404.2. Update the wall assembly ...

Summary: Details 1 and 2 illustrate the complete exterior wall assembly for non-bearing plaster walls. The details explicitly specify "EXT CEMENT PLASTER FINISH" applied directly over "5/8\" TYPE X GYPSUM EXTERIOR SHEATHING" and a "WEEP SCREED". However, the assemblies fail to incorporate a water-resistive barrier (WRB) and exterior lath. The California Building Code strictly requires the exterior wall ...

Why it matters: Omitting the water-resistive barrier and lath from the exterior plaster assembly is a critical detailing error. If constructed as drawn, water penetrating the cement plaster will directly contact the gypsum sheathing, leading to rapid material degradation, mold growth, structural damage to the fr...

Suggested next step: Please revise Details 1 and 2 to explicitly include the required water-resistive barrier and exterior lath between the exterior cement plaster and the gypsum sheathing. Ensure the revised details demonstrate the water-resistive barrier and lath correctly overlapping the attach...

RFI draft: Please revise Details 1 and 2 to explicitly include the required water-resistive barrier and exterior lath between the exterior cement plaster and the gypsum sheathing. Ensure the revised details demonstrate the water-resistive barrier and lath co...