Plan Review: 64 Issues Found

Summary: 87 index entries | 62 perfect matches | 21 mismatched | 4 missing Mismatched (21): S00-01: Expected: COVER SHEET (S00-01) | Actual: STRUCTURAL - COVER SHEET (S00-01)(p11) S00-02: Expected: GENERAL NOTES (S00-02) | Actual: STRUCTURAL - GENERAL NOTES (S00-02)(p12) S00-03: Expected: GENERAL NOTES (S00-03) | Actual: STRUCTURAL - GENERAL NOTES (S00-03)(p13) S00-04: Exp...

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: 4 missing, 21 mismatched out of 87 sheets

Summary: Notes 11.3 and 11.4 establish a typical wall reinforcement spacing of 48" OC for horizontal bars (in 8" and 12" CMU) and 32" OC for vertical bars (in 12" CMU). However, CBC Section 2106.1.3 explicitly dictates that both horizontal and vertical reinforcement in reinforced masonry walls shall be spaced at not more than 24 inches on center.

Why it matters: Installing reinforcement with spacing greater than 24 inches on center violates critical structural seismic design and detailing provisions for reinforced masonry. This results in inadequate structural shear capacity to resist seismic loads, requiring costly demolition and reconstruction of the m...

Suggested next step: Please revise the minimum wall reinforcement schedule in Notes 11.3 and 11.4 to ensure that both horizontal and vertical reinforcement are spaced at no more than 24 inches on center for all structural masonry walls, per CBC Section 2106.1.3.

RFI draft: Please revise the minimum wall reinforcement schedule in Notes 11.3 and 11.4 to ensure that both horizontal and vertical reinforcement are spaced at no more than 24 inches on center for all structural masonry walls, per CBC Section 2106.1.3.

Summary: Note 16 directs the contractor to only fill masonry cells that contain reinforcing steel with grout (partial grouting) unless noted otherwise. However, CBC Section 2106.1.3 requires that all cells be solidly filled with grout for reinforced masonry walls, with partial grouting only permitted as an exception for freestanding site walls or interior nonbearing nonshear partitions.

Why it matters: Applying partial grouting to structural bearing or shear walls significantly reduces the wall's shear and compressive capacity, directly violating seismic code provisions. If structural walls are constructed partially grouted as dictated by this default note, they will fail structural inspections...

Suggested next step: Please revise Note 16 to mandate that all cells in structural reinforced masonry walls be solidly filled with grout, per CBC Section 2106.1.3, and specify that partial grouting is only permitted for nonbearing nonshear partitions or freestanding site walls.

RFI draft: Please revise Note 16 to mandate that all cells in structural reinforced masonry walls be solidly filled with grout, per CBC Section 2106.1.3, and specify that partial grouting is only permitted for nonbearing nonshear partitions or freestanding s...

Summary: Detail 14 specifies fastening the bottom track to concrete using power-actuated fasteners ('(2) PAF @ 12"OC W/ 3/4" EMBED TO CONC') for all structural steel stud walls. However, CBC Section 2211.1.1.2 requires cold-formed steel stud foundation sills to be bolted to the foundation per Section 2304.3.4, Item 2. This section mandates that sills under exterior walls, bearing walls, and shear walls ...

Why it matters: Using power-actuated fasteners with only 3/4-inch embedment for structural/shear walls fails to meet the minimum code requirement of 5/8-inch diameter bolts with 7-inch embedment. This significantly compromises the base shear and tension transfer from the structural wall to the foundation, potent...

Suggested next step: Revise Detail 14 to specify 5/8-inch diameter anchor bolts with a minimum 7-inch embedment into concrete for all structural wall bottom tracks, conforming to CBC 2211.1.1.2 and 2304.3.4, Item 2. Clarify if the 3/4" embed PAFs are restricted exclusively to non-structural interi...

RFI draft: Revise Detail 14 to specify 5/8-inch diameter anchor bolts with a minimum 7-inch embedment into concrete for all structural wall bottom tracks, conforming to CBC 2211.1.1.2 and 2304.3.4, Item 2. Clarify if the 3/4" embed PAFs are restricted exclus...

Summary: The Shear Wall Schedule designs the lateral system using '33MIL SHEET STEEL' for seismic resistance (which falls under AISI S400 Section E5, Sheet Steel Shear Walls). However, CBC Section 2211.1.1.2 explicitly prohibits shear wall assemblies in accordance with Sections E5, E6, and E7 of AISI S400 from being used within the seismic force-resisting system of buildings.

Why it matters: Sheet steel shear walls are not permitted in seismic force-resisting systems under these structural code amendments due to limitations in ductility or testing performance for these specific applications. Using an unpermitted assembly will result in plan check rejection and requires a complete red...

Suggested next step: Revise the lateral force-resisting system to utilize a code-permitted shear wall assembly (such as wood structural panels or another approved sheathing method) in place of the sheet steel shear walls. Confirm the lateral design complies with the restrictions in CBC Section 221...

RFI draft: Revise the lateral force-resisting system to utilize a code-permitted shear wall assembly (such as wood structural panels or another approved sheathing method) in place of the sheet steel shear walls. Confirm the lateral design complies with the r...

Summary: The site plan depicts a section labeled '7 PARKING SPACES' overlapping the fire apparatus access road (shown with red diagonal hatching) in the eastern portion of the site near the building. Fire apparatus access roads are required to be provided and maintained for fire department use per Section 503.1.1, and Section D103.6 requires NO PARKING: FIRE LANE signs on fire apparatus access roads, con...

Why it matters: Parking spaces within the fire apparatus access road could physically obstruct fire truck access to the building during an emergency, creating a significant life safety hazard. The fire code official will likely reject this layout during plan review, requiring redesign of the parking configuratio...

Suggested next step: Clarify whether the 7 parking spaces shown in the eastern portion of the site are intended to be located within the fire apparatus access road. If so, relocate these parking spaces outside the fire lane boundaries to comply with Section 503.1.1 and D103.6. Coordinate with civi...

RFI draft: Clarify whether the 7 parking spaces shown in the eastern portion of the site are intended to be located within the fire apparatus access road. If so, relocate these parking spaces outside the fire lane boundaries to comply with Section 503.1.1 an...

Summary: The drawings show egress doors (e.g., Door 2A and Door 2C) swinging directly onto the landings for Stair 1 and Stair 3. Section 1005.7.1 dictates that doors in any position shall not reduce the required width of the means of egress by more than one-half. According to the capacity tags, Stair 1 requires a 50.0" width (half is 25.0"), and Stair 3 requires a 51.0" width (half is 25.5"). Both Door ...

Why it matters: During an emergency evacuation, a door swinging into the stairway landing and encroaching this deeply into the travel path severely obstructs egress. This creates a critical pinch point that can impede evacuation flow, delay egress, and cause crowding or injuries, leading to certain rejection dur...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the dimensions of the stair landings at all egress stairs (Stairs 1, 2, and 3). Revise the design to either sufficiently enlarge the landing depths or recess the entry doors into alcoves to ensure the door swing does not reduce the required landing width by more...

RFI draft: Please confirm the dimensions of the stair landings at all egress stairs (Stairs 1, 2, and 3). Revise the design to either sufficiently enlarge the landing depths or recess the entry doors into alcoves to ensure the door swing does not reduce the ...

Summary: The Level 2 Framing Plan (S10-02) calls out a '7-PLY (6 5/8) CLT PANEL' at the west cantilever area. However, the Structural General Notes (S00-04) define the 7-PLY floor panel as '9 5/8" THICK' (V1 GRADE). The 6 5/8" thickness shown on the framing plan does not correspond to any CLT panel defined in the general notes (the three defined panels are 3-PLY at 4 1/8", 5-PLY at 6 7/8", and 7-PLY at ...

Why it matters: A 3-inch discrepancy in CLT panel thickness has major structural implications. The design properties listed in the general notes (FbSeff, EIeff, GAeff, Vallow) for the 7-PLY panel are based on a 9 5/8" thickness. If a 6 5/8" panel were actually used, it would have drastically reduced bending, sti...

Suggested next step: Request clarification from the Structural Engineer of Record: Should the 7-PLY CLT panel at the west cantilever area (shown as 6 5/8" on S10-02) be corrected to 9 5/8" to match the 7-PLY panel specification in the general notes (S00-04, Section 4.9.3)? Alternatively, if a thin...

RFI draft: Request clarification from the Structural Engineer of Record: Should the 7-PLY CLT panel at the west cantilever area (shown as 6 5/8" on S10-02) be corrected to 9 5/8" to match the 7-PLY panel specification in the general notes (S00-04, Section 4....

Summary: Drawing S10-02D establishes that sheet S30-01 contains 'TYPICAL SPREAD AND MAT FOOTING DETAILS' and S20-01 contains 'CONCRETE SHEAR WALL ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS'. However, all shear wall boundary element details on S20-01 (e.g., Detail 7 and Detail 12) instruct the user to lap vertical reinforcement per 'LAP PER SCHED 25/S30-01, TYP'. This erroneously points to the footing details sheet, contrad...

Why it matters: Directing the rebar detailer and contractor to a footing schedule for vertical boundary element lap splices above the foundation will cause confusion, RFIs, and potential errors in critical shear wall reinforcement splice lengths. The callout must point to the correct confined lap splice schedule...

Suggested next step: Please confirm that the boundary element details on S20-01 should reference the Shear Wall Reinforcing Lap Splice Schedule at 21/S20-01 instead of 25/S30-01.

RFI draft: Please confirm that the boundary element details on S20-01 should reference the Shear Wall Reinforcing Lap Splice Schedule at 21/S20-01 instead of 25/S30-01.

Summary: The Level 2 Framing Plan on S10-02 specifies glulam beams with a width of 6-3/4 inches (labeled "GL6 3/4x24") framing into the concrete shear wall, and directs connections to be made per Detail 18/S40-03. However, Detail 18 on S40-03 explicitly specifies a "SIMPSON HSKP5.75x19.5-W HANGER", which has an internal saddle width of 5.75 inches. A 5.75-inch wide hanger cannot accommodate a 6.75-inch ...

Why it matters: Specifying a hanger that is narrower than the timber beam will prevent installation in the field, leading to immediate structural coordination delays. A correctly sized hanger (e.g., an HSKP6.75 variant) must be scheduled to fit the actual glulam dimensions.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct hanger specification for the "GL6 3/4x24" beams framing into the concrete shear wall. Detail 18/S40-03 calls for a SIMPSON HSKP5.75x19.5-W, which is too narrow for a 6-3/4" beam. Should the detail be updated to a hanger that accommodates the 6-3/4" w...

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct hanger specification for the "GL6 3/4x24" beams framing into the concrete shear wall. Detail 18/S40-03 calls for a SIMPSON HSKP5.75x19.5-W, which is too narrow for a 6-3/4" beam. Should the detail be updated to a hanger ...

Summary: The Load Shed Schedule for the "SS2" (Islanded) state on Page 39 dictates that the '52-MID' device should be under "LOADS ENERGIZED" when battery capacity drops below 40%. However, the same diagram defines the SS2 state properties as "MID STATUS: OPEN". Furthermore, Page 41 designates '52-MID' as the 800A main utility tie breaker (Microgrid Interconnect Device), not a load. A utility tie breake...

Why it matters: This logical contradiction in the sequence of operations will cause programming errors in the Microgrid Energy Management System (MEMS). If the controller attempts to close or "energize" the 52-MID breaker during island mode to satisfy the load shed schedule, it could inadvertently reconnect the ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the 'SS2' Load Shed Schedule. Should '52-MID' be replaced with '52-LOAD', '52-MG', or another specific load breaker, given that the 52-MID utility tie breaker must remain OPEN during the SS2 Islanded state?

RFI draft: Please clarify the 'SS2' Load Shed Schedule. Should '52-MID' be replaced with '52-LOAD', '52-MG', or another specific load breaker, given that the 52-MID utility tie breaker must remain OPEN during the SS2 Islanded state?

Summary: The Occupant Load Calculations schedule shows 'ASSEMBLY - UNCONC. TABLES & CHAIRS' at 6,676 SF with a 15 SF NET factor yielding 394 OCC. However, 6,676 ÷ 15 = 445.07, which rounds up to 446, not 394 (a 52-occupant undercount). Similarly, 'BUSINESS - SMALL ASSEMBLY' at 4,408 SF with a 15 SF NET factor yields 267 OCC, but 4,408 ÷ 15 = 293.87, rounding up to 294, not 267 (a 27-occupant undercount)...

Why it matters: An occupant load undercount of 79 persons (~9%) directly affects required plumbing fixture quantities per CBC 2902.1 and may also affect egress capacity assignments. The plumbing fixture schedule shows required counts exactly matching provided counts with no surplus, so any increase in occupant l...

Suggested next step: Request the architect to verify and correct the occupant load calculations in the Occupant Load Calculations schedule and the Plumbing Fixture Counts schedule. Specifically: (1) Assembly - Unconc. Tables & Chairs: 6,676 SF ÷ 15 SF/OC = 446 OCC, not 394; (2) Business - Small As...

RFI draft: Request the architect to verify and correct the occupant load calculations in the Occupant Load Calculations schedule and the Plumbing Fixture Counts schedule. Specifically: (1) Assembly - Unconc. Tables & Chairs: 6,676 SF ÷ 15 SF/OC = 446 OCC, no...

Summary: The Occupant Load Calculations table lists Business - Small Assembly as 5,434 SF with an occupant load factor of 15 SF NET, yielding a stated occupant load of 307. However, the correct calculation is 5,434 ÷ 15 = 362.27, which per code must be rounded up to 363 occupants. The stated 307 OCC underestimates the occupant load by 56 persons. This error increases the Level 02 grand total occupant lo...

Why it matters: This mathematical error in the occupant load summary will very likely be identified during plan check review by the Authority Having Jurisdiction, resulting in a correction notice and potential redesign requirements. If the corrected occupant load of 808 triggers a need for additional egress capa...

Suggested next step: Request the architect verify the Business-Small Assembly occupant load calculation in the Occupant Load Calculations table. The stated area of 5,434 SF divided by the 15 SF/OC load factor yields 363 occupants, not the 307 shown. Confirm the correct total area for Business-Smal...

RFI draft: Request the architect verify the Business-Small Assembly occupant load calculation in the Occupant Load Calculations table. The stated area of 5,434 SF divided by the 15 SF/OC load factor yields 363 occupants, not the 307 shown. Confirm the correc...

Summary: The penthouse framing plan specifies 15/32" plywood sheathing over 800S162-43 cold-formed steel joists at both the penthouse (16"OC) and mechanical shaft (24"OC) locations. Plan Note 4 explicitly states the sheathing shall be "NAILED TO ROOF FRAMING WITH 0.131"DIAx2 1/2" NAILS @ 6"OC AT SUPPORTED PANEL EDGES AND @ 12"OC FIELD." The designation 800S162-43 identifies a cold-formed steel member wi...

Why it matters: This would be a construction-stopping issue. Contractors will immediately recognize that standard nails cannot be driven into steel joists and will be unable to install the roof sheathing as specified. Work will halt until an RFI is processed and the engineer provides a corrected fastener specifi...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer to provide a revised fastener specification for attachment of 15/32" plywood sheathing to 800S162-43 CFS joists in accordance with AISI S240, as required by CBC Section 2211.1. The revised specification should identify the correct screw type, di...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer to provide a revised fastener specification for attachment of 15/32" plywood sheathing to 800S162-43 CFS joists in accordance with AISI S240, as required by CBC Section 2211.1. The revised specification should ident...

Summary: Note 15 on the fire protection plan explicitly instructs: 'INSTALL FIRE PROTECTION SUPPLY PIPING BENEATH THE FOOTING, LEADING INTO THE ROOM THROUGH THE FINISHED FLOOR SLAB.' This directive requires excavation beneath or immediately adjacent to the building footing to route the fire suppression supply piping. Section 1804.1 of the 2022 California Building Code states that 'Excavation for any pur...

Why it matters: This issue could cause significant construction delays. If the pipe is routed beneath the footing as directed without addressing foundation protection, inspectors or the structural engineer of record would likely flag this during plan review or field inspection. The structural integrity of the fo...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer review Note 15's directive to install fire protection supply piping beneath the footing at the Fire Protection Room (1707). Specifically ask: (1) Has the structural engineer evaluated the impact of routing piping beneath the footing on bearing c...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer review Note 15's directive to install fire protection supply piping beneath the footing at the Fire Protection Room (1707). Specifically ask: (1) Has the structural engineer evaluated the impact of routing piping be...