Plan Review: 137 Issues Found

Summary: 71 index entries | 25 perfect matches | 1 mismatched | 45 missing Mismatched (1): G002: Expected: PROJECT INFORMATION (G002) | Actual: PROJECT INFORMATION (G001)(p2) Missing (45), listed in drawing index but not found in the document: Architectural: - A001 DEMOLISHED SITE PLAN - A160 OVERALL 6TH FLOOR PLAN - A503 ENLARGED ELEVATOR #1 PLANS & SECTION - A507 ENLA...

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: 45 missing, 1 mismatched out of 71 sheets

Summary: The drawings specify a 'REDUCED CLASS B(7)' lap splice in the 'LAP SPLICE OF LONGITUDINAL GR60 REBAR (IN)' schedule, providing splice lengths that are equal to a Class A lap splice (1.0 Ld) rather than standard Class B lengths (1.3 Ld). Note 7 explicitly directs the use of this 'REDUCED CLASS B LAP SPLICE' at columns and shear wall boundary members. This violates building code requirements, as ...

Why it matters: Applying a reduced, non-compliant lap splice length in critical seismic force-resisting elements severely compromises the structural integrity of the building. A shortened lap splice in these critical boundary zones can lead to non-ductile failure of the reinforcement splicing during a seismic ev...

Suggested next step: Please revise the 'DEVELOPMENT AND SPLICE OF REBAR IN CONCRETE' schedule and Note 7 to require full Class B tension lap splices (1.3 Ld) for all columns and shear wall boundary elements, in accordance with ACI 318 seismic detailing requirements.

RFI draft: Please revise the 'DEVELOPMENT AND SPLICE OF REBAR IN CONCRETE' schedule and Note 7 to require full Class B tension lap splices (1.3 Ld) for all columns and shear wall boundary elements, in accordance with ACI 318 seismic detailing requirements.

Summary: Detail 7 specifies a "TOP MOUNT TYPE HANGER" to be installed "UPSIDE DOWN," with the "CONTINUOUS BEAM SUPPORTED BY HANGER FLANGE." Top-mount hanger flanges are specifically designed to hook over and bear entirely on top of a supporting member to transfer load via direct bearing. Inverting the hanger and using its thin-gauge steel top flanges as an unsupported bearing seat for a gravity-loaded b...

Why it matters: Placing top-mount hanger flanges in unsupported bending under a continuous gravity load presents a severe risk of structural failure and collapse at the connection.

Suggested next step: Remove the inverted top-mount hanger detail. Specify a properly designed inverted hanger, a bottom-bearing hanger assembly, or custom hardware configuration expressly approved by the manufacturer for this specific load path.

RFI draft: Remove the inverted top-mount hanger detail. Specify a properly designed inverted hanger, a bottom-bearing hanger assembly, or custom hardware configuration expressly approved by the manufacturer for this specific load path.

Summary: The 'ELEVATOR GUIDE RAIL SUPPORT DETAIL' shows a steel connection plate attached directly to bare wood framing ('2-2x RIMBOARD OR 2-1 3/4"x LSL RIMBOARD') on the 'ELEVATOR SIDE'. The detail explicitly notes that the connection is to 'WOOD FRAMING' and the plate must 'MATCH FRAMING DEPTH'. This configuration exposes combustible structural wood framing directly to the elevator hoistway without an...

Why it matters: Section 3002.1 mandates that elevator hoistways must be protected as shaft enclosures, which require continuous fire-resistance-rated construction. Leaving structural wood framing exposed inside the hoistway breaks the continuity of the required fire-rated shaft assembly, creating a critical fire...

Suggested next step: Revise the elevator guide rail support detail to show the required continuous fire-resistance-rated shaft enclosure (e.g., layers of fire-rated gypsum board) separating the hoistway from the wood floor framing. Ensure the guide rail attachment coordinates securely with the rat...

RFI draft: Revise the elevator guide rail support detail to show the required continuous fire-resistance-rated shaft enclosure (e.g., layers of fire-rated gypsum board) separating the hoistway from the wood floor framing. Ensure the guide rail attachment coo...

Summary: The Architectural plan locates the secondary stair (STAIR #2 430) along the mid-eastern wall. However, the Structural framing plan designates the northeast corner for the stair (D/B STAIR BY OTHERS) and frames the mid-eastern area with solid floor joists (FJ-1).

Why it matters: This is a critical layout discrepancy. If framing proceeds per the structural drawings, there will be no shaft opening for the architectural stair, and the structural opening in the northeast corner will conflict with the architectural studio unit layout.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct location for Stair #2. Update either the Architectural plan to move the stair to the northeast corner, or update the Structural plan to frame the stair opening at the mid-eastern wall and close the northeast corner.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct location for Stair #2. Update either the Architectural plan to move the stair to the northeast corner, or update the Structural plan to frame the stair opening at the mid-eastern wall and close the northeast corner.

Summary: The structural foundation plan (S2.01) specifies the eastern perimeter wall along Grid R (adjacent to Stair #2) as a concrete shear wall (SW10A) with a thickness of 1'-6" (18 inches). In contrast, the architectural slab plan (A111) explicitly dimensions this same exterior wall segment as a 10 7/8" concrete wall.

Why it matters: A discrepancy of 7-1/8 inches on an exterior property line wall is critical. The architectural floor plan (A110) requires a tight 7/8" setback from the property line. If the 18-inch structural wall thickness is implemented, the building footprint will either encroach over the property line or sig...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct thickness for the eastern exterior wall along Grid R. Should it be 1'-6" as per the structural drawings or 10-7/8" as indicated on the architectural plans? Please ensure the 7/8" property line setback and interior stair clearances are maintained.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct thickness for the eastern exterior wall along Grid R. Should it be 1'-6" as per the structural drawings or 10-7/8" as indicated on the architectural plans? Please ensure the 7/8" property line setback and interior stair ...

Summary: The Overall 1st Floor Plan (A110) locates Stair #1 to the east of vertical Grid E, with Grid E passing along the western edge of the adjacent elevator core. In direct contradiction, the Enlarged Stair 1 Plan (A500) shows vertical Grid E running directly through the center of Stair #1. Furthermore, A500 locates the stair between horizontal grids 7 and 8, which do not appear in this area on the o...

Why it matters: Inconsistent structural grid lines between overall floor plans and enlarged core plans will cause severe coordination failures during construction layout. The stair shaft will either be framed in the wrong location (shifted horizontally relative to Grid E) or the surrounding rooms and structural ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct grid coordinates for Stair #1. Confirm if vertical Grid E should run west of the stair core (per the overall plan on A110) or center on the stair (per the enlarged plan on A500). Additionally, update the horizontal grid numbering to be consistent acr...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct grid coordinates for Stair #1. Confirm if vertical Grid E should run west of the stair core (per the overall plan on A110) or center on the stair (per the enlarged plan on A500). Additionally, update the horizontal grid ...

Summary: The Stacking Shear Wall Schedule on S2.04 indicates that wood shear walls extend down to the "2ND TO 3RD" level. However, the Tiedown Run Schedule on S1.52 only provides forces down to the "3rd FLOOR" and then immediately calls for the "CONCRETE OR CMU SUBSTRATE" anchor connection below it, omitting the 2nd floor entirely.

Why it matters: If wood shear walls continue down to the 2nd floor as shown in the stacking schedule, the tiedown runs (which act as the shear wall chords) must also continue through that level. By terminating the scheduled tiedowns at the 3rd floor, the lateral system design is missing critical tension/compress...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the lowest level of wood framing. If wood shear walls extend from the 2nd to 3rd floor per the Stacking Shear Wall Schedule, please provide the required tiedown forces and anchor details for the 2nd floor. If the concrete podium is actually at the 3rd floor, ple...

RFI draft: Please clarify the lowest level of wood framing. If wood shear walls extend from the 2nd to 3rd floor per the Stacking Shear Wall Schedule, please provide the required tiedown forces and anchor details for the 2nd floor. If the concrete podium is ...

Summary: The general sheet notes explicitly state to "MAINTAIN 6'-8" HEAD CLEARANCE AT ALL STAIRS". However, the Stair 2 enlarged section dimensions the head clearance specifically at the 4th-floor doorway as "5'-4 3/8" CLR", which contradicts this requirement.

Why it matters: A head clearance of 5'-4 3/8" at an egress doorway is a severe life-safety and accessibility violation that will not pass building code review or inspection. This inadequate clearance obstructs safe egress and requires immediate correction, likely involving significant adjustments to the intermed...

Suggested next step: Please review the 4th-floor landing doorway in the Stair 2 section, which is currently dimensioned at 5'-4 3/8" clearance. Advise on the necessary adjustments to the stair geometry, landing elevation, or structural framing to provide the required minimum 6'-8" head clearance.

RFI draft: Please review the 4th-floor landing doorway in the Stair 2 section, which is currently dimensioned at 5'-4 3/8" clearance. Advise on the necessary adjustments to the stair geometry, landing elevation, or structural framing to provide the required ...

Summary: Detail 3 shows boundary ties extending only '1'-0"' into the foundation. The project specification requires all concrete construction to conform to the latest ACI 318 and designates the structure as Seismic Design Category D with R = 5 (Special Concrete Shear Wall). Standard practice and ACI 318 Section 18.10.2.3 require transverse reinforcement of special boundary elements to extend into the s...

Why it matters: Failing to extend the boundary element confinement for the full tension development length into the foundation can lead to premature buckling of the longitudinal bars and failure of the boundary element under severe seismic loading. This represents a critical vulnerability in the lateral force-re...

Suggested next step: Please revise the boundary tie foundation extension dimension in Detail 3 from 1'-0" to match the full tension development length (ld) of the boundary longitudinal reinforcement, as required by ACI 318 for special structural walls.

RFI draft: Please revise the boundary tie foundation extension dimension in Detail 3 from 1'-0" to match the full tension development length (ld) of the boundary longitudinal reinforcement, as required by ACI 318 for special structural walls.

Summary: Detail 2 indicates a lap splice length of "3'-0" MIN" and "30 db" for the continuous footing reinforcement. Standard structural practice and ACI 318 require Class B tension lap splices for continuous footing reinforcement subjected to flexural tension. The general notes also specify that all lap splices must be Class B unless noted otherwise. 30 bar diameters is typically inadequate for a stand...

Why it matters: Specifying an undersized lap splice in a foundation element compromises the structural integrity of the continuous footing and violates code requirements for proper rebar development.

Suggested next step: Please confirm if the "30 db" lap splice specification in Detail 2 should be revised to a Class B lap splice to comply with standard practice for tension lap splices and the general structural notes.

RFI draft: Please confirm if the "30 db" lap splice specification in Detail 2 should be revised to a Class B lap splice to comply with standard practice for tension lap splices and the general structural notes.

Summary: The Area Schedule explicitly designates "PARKING (NOT FAR) 6,615 SF", yet this value is included in the schedule's "GRAND TOTAL 55,397 SF". This combined total is then incorrectly stated as the "TOTAL PROVIDED FLOOR AREA" and FAR area in the Project Information block. Additionally, the stated FAR of "3.56:1" does not match mathematically with either the incorrect gross area (55,397 / 12,306 = 4...

Why it matters: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is a fundamental metric for zoning compliance and entitlement approvals. Presenting mathematically incorrect FAR calculations that improperly include exempt parking areas misrepresents the project's density and will cause immediate rejection of the entitlement application o...

Suggested next step: Revise the Area Schedule to properly exclude the 6,615 SF of parking from the FAR "GRAND TOTAL". Recalculate and update the "PROVIDED FLOOR AREA" and FAR ratio across all project information blocks using the correct FAR area and the 12,306 SF site area.

RFI draft: Revise the Area Schedule to properly exclude the 6,615 SF of parking from the FAR "GRAND TOTAL". Recalculate and update the "PROVIDED FLOOR AREA" and FAR ratio across all project information blocks using the correct FAR area and the 12,306 SF site...

Summary: The 'CODE' section of the general notes lists '2. RISK CATEGORY:' but fails to provide a value.

Why it matters: CBC Sections 1603.1.4 and 1603.1.5 require the Risk Category to be clearly indicated on the construction documents. The Risk Category is a critical parameter that determines the importance factors for wind, snow, and seismic load calculations. Without this value, the environmental load design can...

Suggested next step: Please update the structural notes to provide the project's Risk Category in accordance with CBC 1603.1.4 and 1603.1.5.

RFI draft: Please update the structural notes to provide the project's Risk Category in accordance with CBC 1603.1.4 and 1603.1.5.

Summary: The seismic design data on the structural notes lists 'SITE CLASS: II'.

Why it matters: CBC Section 1613.2.2 mandates that the site class be classified as A, B, C, D, E, or F based on soil properties. 'II' is not a valid site class designation under the code. An accurate site class letter is required to determine the site coefficients and design spectral response acceleration parame...

Suggested next step: Please correct the seismic design data to state a valid Site Class (A, B, C, D, E, or F) as required by CBC 1613.2.2.

RFI draft: Please correct the seismic design data to state a valid Site Class (A, B, C, D, E, or F) as required by CBC 1613.2.2.

Summary: The General Notes for Masonry state that 'GROUTING LIFTS GREATER THAN 5'-0" AND NOT MORE THAN 12'-8" (HIGH LIFT GROUT) CAN BE PLACED', which directly contradicts CBC Section 2104.2.4. The building code strictly requires that for high lift grout pours, the grouting must be done in continuous lifts not exceeding 4 feet (or 5 feet 4 inches for 10-inch or wider hollow units). The drawing erroneousl...

Why it matters: Placing masonry grout in single lifts up to 12'-8" exceeds the code maximum and generates excessive hydrostatic pressure against the masonry units. This can cause block form blowouts and significantly increases the risk of voids and poor grout consolidation around reinforcing steel. This fundamen...

Suggested next step: Please revise Masonry General Note 18 to clarify that while the total grout pour height may be up to 12'-8" for high lift grout, the grout must be placed and consolidated in continuous lifts not exceeding 4 feet (or 5 feet 4 inches for 10-inch or wider units), in compliance wi...

RFI draft: Please revise Masonry General Note 18 to clarify that while the total grout pour height may be up to 12'-8" for high lift grout, the grout must be placed and consolidated in continuous lifts not exceeding 4 feet (or 5 feet 4 inches for 10-inch or ...