Plan Review: 118 Issues Found

Summary: 27 index entries | 9 perfect matches | 7 mismatched | 11 missing Mismatched (7): 1OF1: Expected: SURVEY MAP (1OF1) | Actual: SURVEY MAP (Page 1)(p1) GN: Expected: STANDARD CONSTRUCTION NOTES (GN) | Actual: Standard Construction Notes & VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE REQUIREMENTS (GN)(p2) E1: Expected: POWER & LIGHTING PLAN (E1) | Actual: POWER & LIGHTING PLANS (...

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: 11 missing, 7 mismatched out of 27 sheets

Summary: Detail 19 (Garage Wall Section) specifies #4 horizontal bars at 16 in. on center in an 8 in. concrete wall. The provided transverse (horizontal) reinforcement ratio is ρt = As / (h × s) = 0.20 in² / (8 in. × 16 in.) = 0.00156. ACI 318-19 Table 11.6.1 requires a minimum transverse reinforcement ratio ρt of 0.0020 for cast-in-place walls with deformed bars ≤ No. 5 and fy ≥ 60,000 psi. The provide...

Why it matters: Insufficient minimum horizontal wall reinforcement compromises the wall's ability to resist shrinkage and temperature stresses as well as in-plane shear. This deficiency would be identified during plan review and would require a design revision. If not corrected, it could lead to excessive cracki...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer to revise the horizontal reinforcement spacing in the 8 in. garage concrete wall from #4 @ 16 in. o.c. to #4 @ 12 in. o.c. (or provide an alternative combination of bar size and spacing) to satisfy the minimum transverse reinforcement ratio ρt ≥...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer to revise the horizontal reinforcement spacing in the 8 in. garage concrete wall from #4 @ 16 in. o.c. to #4 @ 12 in. o.c. (or provide an alternative combination of bar size and spacing) to satisfy the minimum trans...

Summary: The drawing states C&C design wind pressure shall be calculated per ASCE 7-22 Chapter 28. However, ASCE 7-22 Section 26.1.2.2 explicitly limits C&C wind load determination to Chapter 30 (Analytical Procedures) or Chapter 31 (Wind Tunnel Procedure). Chapter 28 is the Envelope Procedure for the MWFRS of low-rise buildings per Section 26.1.2.1, not for Components and Cladding. Directing C&C design...

Why it matters: Using the wrong chapter for C&C design could result in significantly incorrect design pressures for exterior wall cladding, windows, doors, roof coverings, and fasteners. This could lead to under-designed C&C elements that fail during high-wind events, or plan check rejection by the building offi...

Suggested next step: Request the Structural Engineer of Record correct the General Notes to reference ASCE 7-22 Chapter 30 for C&C design wind pressures, as required by Section 26.1.2.2, and confirm that all C&C wind pressure calculations have been performed using the correct Chapter 30 procedures.

RFI draft: Request the Structural Engineer of Record correct the General Notes to reference ASCE 7-22 Chapter 30 for C&C design wind pressures, as required by Section 26.1.2.2, and confirm that all C&C wind pressure calculations have been performed using the...

Summary: The Connection Nailing schedule (Item 26) specifies nailing requirements for "PARTICLEBOARD" used as "SUBFLOOR, ROOF AND WALL SHEATHING". However, Chapters 5 and 8 of the code only list "Lumber sheathing" and "Wood structural panel sheathing" (e.g., DOC PS 1 or DOC PS 2) for floor and roof sheathing applications. Particleboard is addressed separately in Chapter 6 (Section R605) for wall constru...

Why it matters: Particleboard is not structurally rated for roof or primary subfloor sheathing and lacks the required moisture durability. If installed on a roof or floor, it will likely fail under live loads or degrade from moisture, leading to severe structural safety hazards and costly rework.

Suggested next step: Clarify that particleboard is not permitted for roof or subfloor sheathing. Revise Item 26 in the nailing schedule to restrict particleboard to wall sheathing or approved underlayment applications only.

RFI draft: Clarify that particleboard is not permitted for roof or subfloor sheathing. Revise Item 26 in the nailing schedule to restrict particleboard to wall sheathing or approved underlayment applications only.

Summary: The drawing states the occupancy group as "R-1/U" for a project explicitly described as a "REBUILD 1-STORY S.F.D. w/ 2-CAR GARAGE" (single-family dwelling). Per CBC Section 310.2, Group R-1 is for occupancies "where the occupants are primarily transient in nature," such as hotels and motels. Per CBC Section 310.4, Group R-3 includes "Buildings that do not contain more than two dwelling units," ...

Why it matters: An incorrect occupancy classification is a fundamental error that cascades through every aspect of code compliance review, including allowable height and area (Table 504.4 and Table 506.2), fire-resistance ratings, means of egress requirements, and fire protection system requirements. A plan chec...

Suggested next step: Request the designer correct the occupancy classification from R-1/U to R-3/U on the title sheet and all related documents, and confirm that all code analyses (height/area, fire ratings, egress, sprinkler design) are based on the correct R-3 occupancy classification for a sing...

RFI draft: Request the designer correct the occupancy classification from R-1/U to R-3/U on the title sheet and all related documents, and confirm that all code analyses (height/area, fire ratings, egress, sprinkler design) are based on the correct R-3 occup...

Summary: The FIRST POWER & LIGHTING PLAN shows smoke detector (SD) and combo smoke/carbon monoxide (SD/CM) symbols in the hallway and near the Bedroom-1 walk-in closet, but does not show any smoke alarm device (SD or SD/CM) within the Master Bedroom or Bedroom-2. R310.3 requires that smoke alarms shall be installed 'In each sleeping room.' The plan identifies three sleeping rooms: Master Bedroom, Bedroom...

Why it matters: Missing smoke alarms in sleeping rooms is a life-safety code violation that will be identified during plan review or field inspection and will cause construction delays. Hard-wired smoke alarms with battery backup require advance planning for circuit routing during the electrical rough-in phase. ...

Suggested next step: Request the designer add smoke alarm (SD) or combo smoke detector/carbon monoxide (SD/CM) devices within the Master Bedroom and Bedroom-2 on the FIRST POWER & LIGHTING PLAN, in compliance with R310.3 Item 1 requiring smoke alarms in each sleeping room. Verify wiring and interc...

RFI draft: Request the designer add smoke alarm (SD) or combo smoke detector/carbon monoxide (SD/CM) devices within the Master Bedroom and Bedroom-2 on the FIRST POWER & LIGHTING PLAN, in compliance with R310.3 Item 1 requiring smoke alarms in each sleeping ...

Summary: The window schedule specifies W8 and W10 as 48"x48" Double Hung (DH) windows and designates them for "EGRESS" in Bedroom-1 and Bedroom-2. Under Section R319.2.2, emergency escape and rescue openings must provide a minimum net clear opening height of 24 inches. A double-hung window with a nominal total frame height of 48 inches cannot physically provide a 24-inch net clear opening height, as the...

Why it matters: Installing these windows will result in a life-safety code violation and a failed framing or final inspection. The contractor would be forced to reorder different windows (such as casement windows or significantly taller double-hung units) and potentially alter the wall framing to accommodate the...

Suggested next step: Please revise the window schedule for egress windows W8 and W10 to specify a window height or operating style (such as casement or slider) that guarantees a minimum net clear opening height of 24 inches and a minimum net clear opening area of 5.7 square feet to comply with egr...

RFI draft: Please revise the window schedule for egress windows W8 and W10 to specify a window height or operating style (such as casement or slider) that guarantees a minimum net clear opening height of 24 inches and a minimum net clear opening area of 5.7 ...

Summary: The Architectural Roof Plan (A5) specifies roof sheathing as '1/2" THK. CD-X PLY SHTG.' in the roofing material note, while the Structural Roof Framing Plan (S4.0) Note 4 specifies roof sheathing as '5/8" CDX PLY P.I. 32/16.' These two documents directly contradict each other regarding the thickness of the roof plywood sheathing, a difference of 1/8" that has structural, cost, and code complia...

Why it matters: The structural engineer typically determines sheathing thickness based on rafter spacing, load requirements, and diaphragm design. A 1/2" panel may not meet the structural sheathing span rating (P.I. 32/16 as noted on S4.0) or the required nail withdrawal and lateral resistance for the roof diaph...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required roof sheathing thickness. The Architectural Roof Plan (A5) specifies 1/2" CD-X plywood while the Structural Roof Framing Plan (S4.0) specifies 5/8" CDX plywood. Which thickness governs, and should both drawings be revised to match?

RFI draft: Please clarify the required roof sheathing thickness. The Architectural Roof Plan (A5) specifies 1/2" CD-X plywood while the Structural Roof Framing Plan (S4.0) specifies 5/8" CDX plywood. Which thickness governs, and should both drawings be revis...

Summary: The architectural plan specifies a total exterior wall length of 14'-7" for the Master Bedroom West wall, which contains a 60" wide French door (D23). However, the structural framing plan requires two separate shear wall segments on this exact wall line measuring 4.0' and 12.0' (totaling 16 feet). This structurally required shear wall length exceeds the physical dimension of the wall itself and...

Why it matters: This is a critical coordination failure. The structural shear wall design cannot be constructed as drawn because it requires more solid wall length than exists in the architectural layout. Either the shear wall layout must be redesigned by the structural engineer, or the architectural footprint a...

Suggested next step: Please coordinate the shear wall lengths on the Master Bedroom West wall. Structural sheet S3.0 requires 16 feet of shear wall (4.0' + 12.0') on a wall that Architectural sheet A4 shows as only 14'-7" long containing a 60" wide door. Please provide a revised shear wall layout ...

RFI draft: Please coordinate the shear wall lengths on the Master Bedroom West wall. Structural sheet S3.0 requires 16 feet of shear wall (4.0' + 12.0') on a wall that Architectural sheet A4 shows as only 14'-7" long containing a 60" wide door. Please provid...

Summary: The Garage Foundation Plan on S2.0 specifies the garage floor as a 4" concrete slab on grade. However, Detail 7 (Garage Wall Section) on S6.0, which is directly referenced from the foundation plan via callout 7/S6.0, depicts the garage slab as 5" thick. This is a direct dimensional contradiction for the same element, the garage floor slab, between the plan view and its referenced section detail.

Why it matters: A 1-inch difference in slab thickness has significant implications for concrete volume, reinforcement placement (the plan notes reinforcement to be placed at center of slab, and center placement differs between a 4" and 5" slab), finish floor elevations, curb heights, and coordination with adjace...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended thickness of the garage concrete slab on grade. Sheet S2.0 (Garage Foundation Plan) calls for a 4" slab, while Detail 7/S6.0 (Garage Wall Section) shows a 5" slab. Which dimension governs? Please revise the conflicting drawing to maintain consistenc...

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended thickness of the garage concrete slab on grade. Sheet S2.0 (Garage Foundation Plan) calls for a 4" slab, while Detail 7/S6.0 (Garage Wall Section) shows a 5" slab. Which dimension governs? Please revise the conflicting ...

Summary: The Roof Framing Plan on S4.0 clearly shows a conventionally stick-framed roof with individual rafters (RR-1 = 2x12 R.R. @ 16" O.C., RR-2 = 2x6 R.R. @ 16" O.C.), ridge boards (2x8, 2x14), ceiling joists (CJ-1 = 2x6 C.J. @ 16" O.C.), and ceiling/roof beams (CB-1, CB-2, RB-1). This is definitively conventional rafter-and-ridge-board framing. However, Detail 9 on S8.0 (TYP. EAVES FRAMING DETAIL), ...

Why it matters: This discrepancy creates fundamental confusion about the roof structural system. A conventionally framed rafter roof requires different engineering, connection hardware, load paths, and construction methods compared to a pre-fabricated truss roof. The contractor cannot determine whether to order ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify whether the roof is conventionally framed with rafters and ridge boards as shown on S4.0, or whether pre-fabricated trusses are intended as indicated in Details 9 and 13 on S8.0. If conventional framing is correct, please revise Detail 9 (TYP. EAVES FRAMING DETA...

RFI draft: Please clarify whether the roof is conventionally framed with rafters and ridge boards as shown on S4.0, or whether pre-fabricated trusses are intended as indicated in Details 9 and 13 on S8.0. If conventional framing is correct, please revise Det...

Summary: The 1st Floor Framing Plan notes state that "ALL EXTERIOR STUD WALLS 2x4" unless noted otherwise. However, the Roof Framing Plan calls out several 6x members on the exterior walls (e.g., "6x10 HDR", "6x6 HDR", and "6x6 STUB POST"). The typical wall opening details on S7.0 explicitly confirm that a 6" nominal width header requires a "2x6 STUD WALL". A 6x structural member (5.5" actual width) can...

Why it matters: If constructed as drawn, the oversized 6x headers and posts will protrude past the exterior 2x4 wall framing, causing severe issues for exterior sheathing, weatherproofing, and architectural finishes. The framing depth needs to be reconciled to accommodate the structural load requirements.

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the exterior stud walls designated to receive 6x10 headers and 6x6 stub posts should be upsized to 2x6 framing, or if the header and post sizes should be revised to fit within the specified 2x4 exterior walls.

RFI draft: Please clarify if the exterior stud walls designated to receive 6x10 headers and 6x6 stub posts should be upsized to 2x6 framing, or if the header and post sizes should be revised to fit within the specified 2x4 exterior walls.

Summary: The drawing's Code Compliance Standards section lists all applicable codes as 2025 editions (e.g., "CBC = 2025 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE", "CRC = 2025 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE", etc.). However, the project specification's Standard Construction Notes are explicitly based on the 2023 LA County code editions, referencing "2023 LA County Residential Code - Section R337" and "2023 LA County Buildi...

Why it matters: This discrepancy affects the entire project, as code requirements, section numbers, and technical provisions can differ significantly between code editions. The Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone requirements, structural provisions, energy standards, and all other applicable code sections may ha...

Suggested next step: Request clarification on which code edition governs this project. Confirm whether the applicable codes are the 2023 LA County codes (based on the 2022 California code cycle) as referenced throughout the specification notes, or the 2025 California codes as stated on the Title S...

RFI draft: Request clarification on which code edition governs this project. Confirm whether the applicable codes are the 2023 LA County codes (based on the 2022 California code cycle) as referenced throughout the specification notes, or the 2025 California ...

Summary: The Shearwall Schedule on S7.0, Note 9, specifies sill anchors with "PROVIDE 7" MIN. EMBEDMENT INTO FOOTING." However, the General Notes on S1.0 (Wood Note 3) require foundation anchor bolts with "A MINIMUM OF 8 INCHES EMBEDMENT INTO THE CONCRETE." The drawing detail reduces the embedment by 1 inch compared to the specification requirement, which is a direct contradiction.

Why it matters: Anchor bolt embedment depth directly affects the pull-out capacity of the sill anchor connection into the concrete footing. A 7-inch embedment instead of the specified 8-inch embedment may result in reduced anchorage capacity for all shear wall types listed in the schedule. This could compromise ...

Suggested next step: Request the Engineer of Record to clarify the required minimum anchor bolt embedment for shearwall sill anchors. The Shearwall Schedule Note 9 on S7.0 specifies 7" minimum embedment, while Wood General Note 3 on S1.0 specifies 8" minimum. Please confirm which value governs and...

RFI draft: Request the Engineer of Record to clarify the required minimum anchor bolt embedment for shearwall sill anchors. The Shearwall Schedule Note 9 on S7.0 specifies 7" minimum embedment, while Wood General Note 3 on S1.0 specifies 8" minimum. Please c...

Summary: The drawing's Building Information section identifies the project as "OCCUPANCY GROUP = R-1/U." However, R-1 occupancy is designated for transient lodging facilities (hotels, motels, boarding houses). This project is described as a single-family residence (SFR), which should be classified as R-3 occupancy per the California Building Code and California Residential Code. The project specificatio...

Why it matters: An incorrect occupancy classification affects fire protection requirements, means of egress provisions, allowable area and height calculations, fire-resistance ratings, and numerous other code provisions. R-1 occupancy has stricter requirements for fire alarm systems, emergency lighting, and othe...

Suggested next step: Request that the designer correct the occupancy classification on the Title Sheet from R-1/U to R-3/U to accurately reflect the single-family residential use. Confirm that all project documents, calculations, and code analyses are based on the correct R-3 occupancy classificat...

RFI draft: Request that the designer correct the occupancy classification on the Title Sheet from R-1/U to R-3/U to accurately reflect the single-family residential use. Confirm that all project documents, calculations, and code analyses are based on the cor...