| Date |
Text |
| 2022-12-02 19:09:20 | NEW DUPLEX (R3) SECOND BUILDING REVIEW COMMENTS |
| | CODE: FBC 7TH EDITION (2020) AND CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | PERMIT #22011186 |
| | 910 4TH ST |
| | |
| | NOTE: |
| | BUILDING REVIEW MAY BE APPROVED WITH PROVISO. PROVISO |
| | MEANS CONTRACTOR WILL SUBMIT REQUIRED INFORMATION AFTER |
| | THE PERMIT IS ISSUED BUT BEFORE INSPECTIONS TO AVOID |
| | CONFLICTS/DELAYS. REVISION FEES APPLY. |
| | |
| | ***IMPORTANT****CONTRACTOR TO ADVICE IF PROVISO OPTION |
| | IS PREFERRED AT THIS TIME OR IF RE-SUBMITTING REQUIRED |
| | INFORMATION BEFORE PERMIT ISSUANCE. |
| | |
| | 1- OK. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 2-SINGLE HUNG BEDROOM EGRESS WINDOWS SIZE (3'-1' X |
| | 4'-10-1/2") DOESN'T SEEM TO COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM |
| | CLEAR HEIGHT OPENING REQUIREMENTS OF SEC. R310.2.1 |
| | FBC-RESIDENTIAL. TYPICALLY, SINGLE HUNG WINDOWS WITH A |
| | 63 INCHES HEIGHT ARE THE ONES THAT COMPLY WITH THIS |
| | REQUIREMENT. REVISE AS REQUIRED OR PROVIDE |
| | MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS SHOWING COMPLIANCE ALL |
| | THE EGRESS REQUIREMENTS. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | PARTIALLY ADDRESSED. (DISCUSSED WITH ROBERT BROWN, |
| | BUILDING OFFICIAL). SINCE THIS IS NEW CONSTRUCTION AND |
| | THE SPECIFIED WINDOW SIZE IS SMALLER THAN TYPICAL |
| | EGRESS SIZE AND THE ARCHITECT'S SPECIFIED WINDOW IS |
| | BASED ON SPECIFIC MANUFACTURER AND SPECIFIC SIZE WITH |
| | AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION TO MEET THE EGRESS |
| | REQUIREMENTS, THEN BUILDING OFFICIAL REQUIRES ARCHITECT |
| | OF RECORD TO SPECIFY ON PLANS HOW THE SPECIFIED WINDOW |
| | MEETS THE EGRESS REQUIREMENT. THIS IS REQUIRED IN ORDER |
| | FOR INSPECTOR TO VERIFY THIS CONDITION IN THE FIELD. |
| | ALSO, PLEASE UPLOAD THE MANUFACTURE'S CUT SHEETS ON A |
| | SEPARATE FILE NOT WITH THE RESPONSE LETTER. RESPONSE |
| | LETTER IS ONLY TO HELP EXPEDITE THE REVIEW PROCESS AND |
| | WILL NOT BE PART OF THE PERMIT PACKAGE. THE WINDOW CUT |
| | SHEETS ARE PART OF THE PERMIT PACKAGE. ALSO, SAME THING |
| | APPLIES TO THE ICYNENE ICC EVALUATION REPORT. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 3- ARCHITECT TO CLEARLY SPECIFY ALL ROOF LIVE AND DEAD |
| | LOADS. CLEARLY SPECIFY TRUSS TOP CHORD LIVE AND DEAD |
| | LOADS AND BOTTOM CHORD LIVE AND DEAD LOADS. NOTE: |
| | INCLUDE THE ATTIC LIVE LOAD AS REQUIRED BY TABLE R301.5 |
| | FBC-RESIDENTIAL. SEE FOOTNOTES "B" AND "G". |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | ROOF BOTTOM CHORD LIVE LOAD DOESN'T COMPLY WITH TABLE |
| | R301.5 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. MIN. BOTTOM CHORD LIVE LOAD IS |
| | 10PSF. REVISE INFORMATION AS REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 4- PROVIDE DRAINAGE PLAN SHOWING EXISTING AND PROPOSED |
| | GRADE ELEVATIONS SHOWING HOW KEEPING WATER AWAY FROM |
| | ADJACENT PROPERTIES. PROVIDE SURVEY SHOWING GRADE |
| | ELEVATIONS AND PROPOSED BUILDING. |
| | SEC. R401.3 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. SEC. 107.2.5 CITY |
| | AMENDMENTS AND SEC. 110.9 CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | NOTE: DETAIL 1 ON SHEET A.0.1 DOESN'T REFLECT SITE |
| | DRAINAGE PLAN. ALSO, PROVIDE DETAIL SHOWING HOW RAISING |
| | THE GRADE 6 INCHES AT THE PROPERTY LINE. IF RETAINING |
| | WLL REQUIRED, THEN NEED TO PROVIDE COMPLETE RETAINING |
| | WALL DETAILS/SPECS UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | DRAINAGE PLAN DOESN'T SHOW EXISTING AND PROPOSED |
| | ELEVATIONS. SURVEY SHOWING THE ELEVATIONS WAS NOT |
| | PROVIDED. INFORMATION ON DETAIL 1 ON SHEET A-0.1 |
| | DOESN'T SHOW HOW RAISING THE GRADE 6 INCHES AT THE |
| | PROPERTY LINE. IF RETAINING WILL BE REQUIRED, THEN NEED |
| | TO PROVIDE COMPLETE RETAINING WALL DETAILS/SPECS UNDER |
| | A SEPARATE PERMIT. |
| | ALSO, PROVIDE SWALE DETAIL/SECTION FOR BOTH SIDES (EAST |
| | AND WEST) OF PROPOSED STRUCTURE. |
| | |
| | 5- WALL SEPARATING THE TWO UNITS. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | A)PROVIDE COMPLETE WALL SECTION DETAIL AND |
| | SPECIFICATIONS FOR ONE HOUR FIRE RESISTANCE RATING |
| | SHOWING COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. R302.3 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH ASTM E119, UL 263 OR SEC. 703.3 |
| | FBC-BUILDING. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | PROVIDE COMPLETE DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR TYPE OF |
| | "MUD" TO BE USED TO SEAL ALL OPENINGS AND PENETRATIONS |
| | AS SPECIFIED ON DETAIL 2 ON SHEET A.4. |
| | (SEC. 107.2.1 CITY AMENDMENTS. SEC. 703.3 |
| | FBC-BUILDING). |
| | |
| | ALSO, DETAIL 2 ON SHEET A.4 STATES THAT MASONRY WALL |
| | BETWEEN UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 IS A 2 HR WALL. NEED TO |
| | SPECIFY THE SPECIFIC TYPE OF CONCRETE BLOCK TO BE |
| | CONSIDERED 2 HOUR. SEE UL ASSEMBLY U905 FOR SPECIFIC |
| | TYPE AND REVISE AS REQUIRED. PROVIDE COMPLETE DETAIL |
| | ASSEMBLY. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | B)PROVIDE DETAILS/SPECS FOR WALL THROUGH PENETRATIONS. |
| | SEC. R302.4.1 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | DETAILS PROVIDED ON SHEET A.4 ARE FOR GYPSUM WALLS. |
| | THIS IS MASONRY CONSTRUCTION. |
| | NOTE: PROVIDE DETAIL/SPECIFICATIONS FOR RECEPTACLES AND |
| | ANY OTHER PENETRATIONS ON THE FIRE RATED DEMISING WALL. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 6- THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROOF |
| | SHEATHING ON SHEET S.2. ROOF FRAMING NOTE #1 AND |
| | INFORMATION SHOWN ON TABLE R803.2.3.1 FOR SHEATHING |
| | ATTACHMENT BELOW DON'T MATCH. REVISE AS REQUIRED TO |
| | MATCH TO AVOID CONFLICTS. SEC. 107.2.1 CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | SEC. R803.2.3.1 AND TABLE R803.2.3.1 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | ROOF FRAMING NOTES SPECIFY 10D NAILS. CLEARLY SPECIFY |
| | TYPE OF NAILS. SEC. R803.2.3.1 FBC-RESIDENTIAL REQUIRES |
| | RING SHANK NAILS. SPECIFY THIS ON PLANS. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 7- DESIGN PRESSURES FOR WINDOW #2 ON NORTH AND SOUTH |
| | ELEVATIONS ARE TOO LOW. THESE WINDOWS ARE LOCATED IN |
| | THE END ZONE. REVISE AS REQUIRED. SEC. R301.2.1 |
| | FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | DESIGN PRESSURES WERE LOWERED INSTEAD OF BEING |
| | INCREASED. REVISE AS REQUIRED OR PROVIDE CALCULATIONS |
| | FOR EACH OPENING. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 8- GABLE END DETAIL ON SHEET ON SHEET S.2: NEED TO |
| | SPECIFY TWO WATER RESISTIVE BARRIERS WHEN STUCCO IS |
| | APPLIED TO WOOD AS REQUIRED BY SEC. R703.7.3 |
| | FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | RESPONSE LETTER SAYS "(2) WATER RESISTIVE BARRIERS ARE |
| | SPECIFIED. SEE REVISED SECTION NOTE #3 ON SHEET A.4". |
| | THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT PROVIDED. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 9- WIND RESISTANCE OF EXTERIOR SOFFITS: PROVIDE |
| | COMPLETE DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE SOFFIT |
| | CONSTRUCTION SHOWING COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. R704 |
| | FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | RESPONSE LETTER SAYS "SOFFITS ARE STUCCO. SEE NOTE #2 |
| | ON SHEET A.4". |
| | THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT PROVIDED. |
| | NOTE: DESIGNER OF RECORD NEEDS TO SPECIFY TYPE OF METAL |
| | PLASTER BASE FOR CEILINGS SHOWING COMPLIANCE WITH TABLE |
| | 3 OF ASTM C1063. |
| | |
| | 10- OK. |
| | 11- OK. |
| | 12- OK. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 13-PROVIDE DOOR AND WINDOW DOOR STRUCTURAL BUCK DETAIL |
| | SHOWING COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. R609.7.2.1 |
| | FBC-RESIDENTIAL. SPECIFY STRUCTURAL BUCK SIZE AND |
| | FASTENING. |
| | NOTE: STRUCTURAL BUCK NEEDS TO PROVIDE FULL SUPPORT TO |
| | THE DOOR FRAME AS REQUIRED BY SEC. R609.7.2.1 |
| | FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | DETAILS ON SHEET A.4.1 DON'T SPECIFY FASTENING OF THE |
| | BUCKS. DESIGNER OF RECORD NEEDS TO SPECIFY FASTENER |
| | TYPE AND SIZE/SPACING. CITING PER CODE SECTION IS NOT |
| | ALLOWED. SEC. 107.2.1 CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | |
| | 14- OK. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 15- HOUSE IS DESIGNED WITH UNVENTED ATTIC. ARCHITECT IS |
| | SPECIFYING R-30 ICYNENE SPRAY INSULATION. PROVIDE ICC |
| | EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE ICYNENE R-30 INSULATION TO |
| | VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. R316 FBC-RESIDENTIAL. |
| | NOTE: ARCHITECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE REPORT IN |
| | WRITING PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL TO THIS OFFICE. |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | RESPONSE LETTER SAYS "THIS HAS BEEN ADDED AS A DEFERRED |
| | SUBMITTAL ON REVISED SHEET A.0". REVISED SHEET DOESN'T |
| | SHOW THIS. ALSO, THE ICC EVALUATION REPORT WAS UPLOADED |
| | IN PROJECTDOX IN THE SAME FILE WITH THE RESPONSE |
| | LETTER. PLEASE UPLOAD THE ICC EVALUATION REPORT |
| | REVIEWED/APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECT ON A SEPARATE FILE |
| | NOT WITH THE RESPONSE LETTER. |
| | |
| | 16-DEFERRED SUBMITTAL. PRODUCT APPROVALS (FAC |
| | 61G20-3.001): |
| | A)ENTRY WOOD DOOR AS SPECIFIED ON PLANS. |
| | B)WOOD FRENCH DOOR AS SPECIFIED ON PLANS. |
| | C)SINGLE HUNG WINDOWS. |
| | D)WINDOW MULLIONS (NOTE: NEED TO SPECIFY MULLION SIZE |
| | TO VERIFY PRESSURES. SEC. R301.2.1 FBC-RESIDENTIAL). |
| | E)HURRICANE SHUTTERS IF DOORS AND WINDOWS DON'T HAVE |
| | IMPACT GLAZING. AND, PROVIDE COMPLETE INSTALLATION |
| | SCHEDULE. SEE CITY SAMPLE. |
| | E)SHINGLES. |
| | F)ROOFING UNDERLAYMENT SPECIFIED ON PLANS. |
| | |
| | 17- DESIGNER OF RECORD TO REVIEW AND APPROVE IN WRITING |
| | (NOT SIGNING AND SEALING) ALL PRODUCT APPROVALS AS |
| | REQUIRED BY SEC. 107.3.4.1 CITY AMENDMENTS. |
| | |
| | ORIGINAL COMMENT: |
| | 18- REVISE ENERGY CALCULATIONS: |
| | |
| | RESPONSE: |
| | ENERGY CALCULATIONS WERE NOT REVISED. SAME ITEMS APPLY. |
| | SEE BELOW: |
| | |
| | A)PROVIDE COMPLETE INFORMATION ON TOP OF FORM, |
| | INCLUDING OWNER NAME, BUILDER NAME. SEC. R101.5.1.1.2 |
| | FBC-ENERGY CONSERVATION. |
| | |
| | B)ITEM #2 ON PAGE 1 IS INCORRECT. THIS IS A MULTIFAMILY |
| | BUILDING. SEC. R101.5.1.1.2 FBC-ENERGY CONSERVATION. |
| | REVISE AS REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | C)ITEM #3 ON PAGE 1 IS INCORRECT. THIS IS A MULTIFAMILY |
| | BUILDING. SEC. R101.5.1.1.2 FBC-ENERGY CONSERVATION. |
| | REVISE AS REQUIRED. |
| | |
| | D)CEILING R-VALUE INFORMATION ON PAGE 1 DOESN'T MATCH |
| | INFORMATION ON PLANS. |
| | REVISE AS REQUIRED. SEC. R101.5.1.1.2 FBC-ENERGY |
| | CONSERVATION. |
| | |
| | E)WATER HEATER IS ELECTRIC NOT GAS. SEE PLANS AND |
| | REVISE AS REQUIRED. SEC. R101.5.1.1.2 FBC-ENERGY |
| | CONSERVATION. |
| | |
| | F) ROOF TYPE AND MATERIAL SPECIFIED ON SECOND PAGE IS |
| | INCORRECT. SEE PLANS AND REVISE AS REQUIRED. SEC. |
| | R101.5.1.1.2 FBC-ENERGY CONSERVATION. |
| | |
| | G)BUILDER TO SIGN AND COMPLETE THE ENERGY PERFORMANCE |
| | LEVEL (EPL) DISPLAY CARD. SEC. R405.4.3 FBC- ENERGY |
| | CONSERVATION. |
| | |
| | WHEN RESUBMITTING, A TRANSMITTAL LETTER LISTING THE |
| | ORIGINAL REVIEW COMMENT WITH A DESCRIPTION OF WHERE AND |
| | HOW THE COMMENT WAS ADDRESSED WILL HELP TO EXPEDITE THE |
| | REVIEW PROCESS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANTICIPATED |
| | COOPERATION. |
| | |
| | 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] |
| | |
