| Date |
Text |
| 2022-02-04 14:14:55 | NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (R3) SECOND AUDIT COMMENTS |
| | CODE: FBC 7TH EDITION (2020) AND CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | PERMIT #21090499 |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 1- MISSING LOT DRAINAGE |
| | PROVIDE DRAINAGE PLAN SHOWING COMPLIANCE WITH THE |
| | FOLLOWING: R401.3 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. SEC. 107.2.5 CITY |
| | AMENDMENTS. |
| | SEC. 110.9 CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | NOTE: DRAINAGE PLAN TO SHOW THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED |
| | GRADE ELEVATIONS SHOWING HOW KEEPING WATER AWAY FROM |
| | ADJACENT PROPERTIES. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | PROPOSED DRAINAGE & SITE PLAN ON SHEET SP-1: |
| | BASED ON THE BOUNDARY SURVEY SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED |
| | DRAINAGE PLAN THIS LOT WILL HAVE FINISH GRADE |
| | ELEVATIONS A COUPLE OF FEET (3 FEET +/-) HIGHER THAN |
| | EXISTING GRADES. PROPOSED DRAINAGE PLAN IS INCOMPLETE. |
| | IT DOESN'T SHOW ANY RETAINING WALLS SHOWING HOW THIS |
| | ELEVATED SOIL WILL BE SUPPORTED. SEC. 107.2.1.2 CITY |
| | AMENDMENTS. ALSO, THE HOUSE FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION |
| | SHOWN ON THE SURVEY AND PROPOSED DRAINAGE PLAN DON'T |
| | MATCH. |
| | NOTE: SEPARATE PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE |
| | RETAINING WALLS. ALSO, KEEP IN CONSIDERATION THAT THERE |
| | IS A DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON THE NORTH WEST SIDE OF THIS |
| | LOT. COORDINATE WITH THE PERTINENT UTILITY TO AVOID |
| | CONFLICTS/DELAYS. |
| | |
| | 2- SHEET A-1: |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | A)WIND DESIGN DATA SPECIFIES EXPOSURE "B". ACCORDING TO |
| | SEC. R301.2.1.4.3 FBC-RESIDENTIAL THIS BUILDING IS |
| | LOCATED IN EXPOSURE "C" NOT "B". REVISE EXPOSURE IN ALL |
| | PLANS. |
| | NOTE: REVISE DOORS, WINDOWS, ROOF DESIGN PRESSURES |
| | ACCORDINGLY. AND, VERIFY ALL PRODUCT APPROVALS FOR |
| | COMPLIANCE BEFORE SUBMITTAL. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULES SHOW THE REVISED DESIGN |
| | PRESSURES BUT THE DESIGN PRESSURES UNDER WIND DESIGN |
| | DATA ON SAME SHEET WAS NOT REVISED. ALSO, CODE |
| | INFORMATION ON SHEET A-2, A-3 AND S-2 STATE THAT THE |
| | MAXIMUM PRESSURES FOR OPENINGS DOES NOT EXCEED +/- 59 |
| | PSF. THIS IS A CONFLICT WITH THE REVISED DESIGN |
| | PRESSURES SHOWN THE WINDOW/DOOR SCHEDULES. REVISE AS |
| | REQUIRED TO MATCH. |
| | CLARIFY WHY THE DESIGN PRESSURES FOR DOOR #13 ARE |
| | -601.4? |
| | DESIGN PRESSURES ON THE WINDOW/DOOR SCHEDULES STATES |
| | "P.S.I". CLARIFY IF THIS IS A MISTAKE OR IF CALCULATED |
| | PRESSURES ARE REALLY ON POUND PER SQUARE INCH. |
| | TYPICALLY, DESIGN PRESSURES ARE GIVEN IN POUNDS PER |
| | SQUARE FEET (P.S.F.). |
| | |
| | B)OK. |
| | C)OK. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | D)CLARIFY THE PURPOSE COVERED PATIO DOOR #14 SHOWN |
| | ADJACENT TO THE SLIDING GLASS DOORS BY THE KITCHEN |
| | AREA. PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION: DOOR TYPE, DESIGN |
| | PRESSURES, FRAMING, PRODUCT APPROVALS, ETC. SEC. |
| | 107.2.1 CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | ARCHITECT'S RESPONSE LETTER STATES "THE PATIO DOOR IS |
| | BEING INSTALLED FOR POSSIBLE FUTURE SCREEN ENCLOSURE |
| | INSTALLATION". |
| | THERE ARE 2 CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PATIO DOOR. FIRST, IF |
| | THE PROPOSED USE IS A FUTURE SCREEN ENCLOSURE, THEN WHY |
| | THIS DOOR (#14) IS SPECIFIED AS A METAL/GLASS FRENCH |
| | DOOR?. AND SECOND, THE DESIGN PRESSURES FOR THIS DOOR |
| | NEED TO BE REVISED BASED ON THE PROPOSED LOCATION. NOW |
| | IS NOT A DOOR IN AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE. SEC. 107.2.1.2 |
| | CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | |
| | 3- SHEET S-1: |
| | A)OK. |
| | B)OK. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | C)FRAMED BEARING WALL BETWEEN OFFICE AND LIVING ROOM IS |
| | NOT CLEAR. FOUNDATION PLAN AND INTERIOR BEARING WALL |
| | DETAIL 4/S-3 SPECIFY 2X6 SPF @16"O.C. HOW CAN YOU HAVE |
| | 2X6 STUDS AT 16" O.C. IF PLANS SHOW 11-1/2" COLUMNS |
| | SPACED AT 5'-0" AND 3'-0"? REVISE AS REQUIRED. PROVIDE |
| | CORRECT DETAIL/SPECIFICATIONS FOR BEARING WALL IN THIS |
| | AREA. SEC. R301.1 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. SEC. 107.2.1 CITY |
| | AMENDMENTS. |
| | NOTE: SPECIFY TOP AND BOTTOM CONNECTIONS ALSO. INTERIOR |
| | BEARING WALL DETAIL 4/S-3 ON SHEET S-3 SPECIFIES HUGHES |
| | TP6X TOP & BOTTOM CONNECTORS. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING |
| | HUGHES IS OUT OF BUSINESS AND THIS CONNECTORS ARE NO |
| | LONGER AVAILABLE. REVISE CONNECTORS AS REQUIRED OR |
| | PROVIDE COPY OF CURRENT HUGHES CATALOG. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | THERE ARE NOT DETAILS OR SPECIFICATIONS FOR TOP AND |
| | BOTTOM CONNECTIONS FOR THE REVISED (3)2X6 SUPPORTING |
| | COLUMNS. SEC. 107.2.1.2 CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | D)DESIGN DATA NOTE #4 SHOWN UNDER FOUNDATION NOTES IS |
| | MISSING INFORMATION. DESIGNER OF RECORD TO CLEARLY |
| | SPECIFY ROOF LIVE AND DEAD LOADS (TOP AND BOTTOM |
| | CHORDS), INCLUDING THE ATTIC LIVE LOAD AS REQUIRED BY |
| | TABLE R301.5 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. NOTE: SEE FOOTNOTES "B" |
| | AND "G". THIS HOUSE HAS TALL ATTICS. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | ONLY THE LIVE LOADS ARE SPECIFIED. ARCHITECT NEEDS TO |
| | SPECIFY THE DEAD LOADS ALSO. CLEARLY SPECIFY ROOF LIVE |
| | AND DEAD LOADS (TOP AND BOTTOM CHORDS) |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 4- SHEET S-2: THERE IS NOT INFORMATION FOR THE BEAMS AT |
| | THE COVERED PATIO AND ABOVE ALL OPENINGS. PROVIDE BEAM |
| | SCHEDULE AND COMPLETE DETAILS/ SPECIFICATIONS. SEC. |
| | R301.1 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | NO BEAM SCHEDULE PROVIDED. ARCHITECT'S RESPONSE LETTER |
| | STATES "THERE ARE TWO SETS OF BEAMS, ONE AT TRUSS |
| | BEARING HEIGHTS, AND THE OTHER AT THE TOP OF |
| | WINDOW/DOOR HEIGHT." |
| | THESE RESPONSE, DOESN'T CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE BEAMS |
| | ABOVE THE COVERED PATIO. |
| | SPECIFICATIONS ON THE BUILDING CROSS SECTIONS ON SHEET |
| | S-4 AND S-5 SPECIFY "(2)COURSE BONDBEAM W/ (1)#5 DIA. |
| | EACH COURSE & POUR SOLID. ADD (2)30" LONG BENT BARS AT |
| | CORNERS. FILL BEAMS W/ 2,500 P.S.I. GROUT (8" TO 11 |
| | SUMP)". THESE ARE TYPICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE HOUSE |
| | BONDBEAM. THE BOND BEAM IS THE HORIZONTAL STRUCTURAL |
| | ELEMENT THAT IS PART OF A MASONRY WALL ASSEMBLY TO |
| | PROVIDE HORIZONTAL STRENGTH TO THAT MASONRY WALL. |
| | TYPICALLY, POURED CONCRETE BEAMS OR PRECAST LINTELS ARE |
| | SPECIFIED ON COVERED PORCHES. |
| | IT IS NOT CLEAR, BUT BASED ON THE ARCHITECT'S RESPONSE |
| | LETTER IT LOOKS LIKE THE ARCHITECT IS PROPOSING TO USE |
| | THIS BOND BEAM AS THE BEAM TO CARRY ALL THE LOADS ON |
| | THE COVERED PATIO AREA. |
| | IF THIS IS THE CASE, THEN THERE IS A SAFETY STRUCTURAL |
| | CONCERN BASED ON THE BEAM SPANS AND DEAD LOADS ON THE |
| | COVERED PATIO. PROVIDE CALCULATIONS SHOWING THAT THE |
| | PROPOSED BOND BEAM IS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT ALL THE LOADS |
| | ON THE COVERED PATIO. SEC. 107.2.1.2 CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | |
| | 5-SHEET S-3: |
| | A)OK. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | B)REVISE WINDOW/DOOR BUCK DETAIL. 1X4 BUCKS DON'T |
| | PROVIDE FULL SUPPORT TO THE DOOR FRAME AS REQUIRED BY |
| | SEC. R609.7.2.1 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | REPEAT COMMENT. DETAIL NO REVISED. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 6- REVISE ROOF SHEATHING NAILING SPACING. ROOF |
| | SHEATHING NEEDS TO BE NAILED AT 4 INCHES O.C. IN THE |
| | FIELD AND EDGES AS REQUIRED BY SEC. R803.2.3.1 AND |
| | TABLE R803.2.3.1 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | NOTE: REVISE SPECIFICATIONS ON ALL PLANS AND WALL |
| | SECTIONS TO AVOID CONFLICTS/DELAYS. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | SPECIFICATIONS ON THE BUILDING CROSS SECTIONS ON SHEET |
| | S-4 AND S-5 SPECIFY "PLYWD. SECURED TO TRUSS TOP CHORD |
| | W/ 8D RING SHANK NAILS (0.113" DIA.MIN.) @ 6"O.C. |
| | THROUGHOUT (ENTIRE ROOF IS AS ZONE 3) 4" O.C. @ ENDS". |
| | THESE SPECIFICATIONS DON'T SPECIFY 4" O.C. AS REQUIRED |
| | BY TABLE TABLE R803.2.3.1 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. REVISE AS |
| | REQUIRED. |
| | NOTE: AFTER A SECOND REVIEW OF THE ROOF SHEATHING |
| | SPECIFICATIONS IT WAS NOTED THAT THE PLYWOOD THICKNESS |
| | WAS NOT SPECIFIED. PLEASE SPECIFY PLYWOOD THICKNESS |
| | ALSO. |
| | |
| | 7-OK. |
| | 8-OK. |
| | 9-OK. |
| | |
| | 10- PRODUCT APPROVALS |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | A)GARAGE DOOR NOA 20-0922.36 IS FOR DOORS WITH A |
| | MAXIMUM WIDTH OF 9'-0". GARAGE DOORS SPECIFIED ON PLANS |
| | ARE BIGGER. NEED ANOTHER PRODUCT APPROVAL FOR SPECIFIED |
| | LARGER SIZE. FAC 61G20-3.001. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR NOA 20-0922.15 SUBMITTED. THE |
| | DESIGN PRESSURES OF THIS GARAGE DOOR DON'T MEET THE |
| | DESIGN PRESSURES CALCULATED BY THE ARCHITECT OF RECORD |
| | ON SHEET A-1 DOOR SCHEDULE. NEED PRODUCT APPROVAL FOR |
| | DOOR MEETING OR EXCEEDING THE CALCULATED DESIGN |
| | PRESSURES. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | B)MISSING PRODUCT APPROVALS FOR ALL TYPES OF WINDOWS |
| | SHOWN ON PLANS. FAC 61G20-3.001. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | RESPONSE LETTER STATES THAT THE PRODUCT APPROVALS WERE |
| | SUBMITTED. THERE ARE NO WINDOWS PRODUCT APPROVALS |
| | UPLOADED TO PROJECTDOX. |
| | |
| | C) OK. |
| | D) OK. |
| | |
| | 11- OK. |
| | PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME IF YOU HAVE ANY |
| | QUESTIONS REGARDING THESE COMMENTS, |
| | JULIO GOMEZ |
| | COMMERCIAL COMBINATION PLANS EXAMINER |
| | DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT |
| | BUILDING DIVISION |
| | (561)805-6712 |
| | [email protected] |
| | |
| | |
