Plan Review: 38 Issues Found

Summary: 26 index entries | 12 perfect matches | 10 mismatched | 4 missing Mismatched (10): T-3: Expected: GREEN CODE MANDATORY MEASURES (T-3) | Actual: GREEN CODE MANDATORY MEASURES (T-2)(p3) C-1: Expected: SITE PLAN (C-1) | Actual: EXISTING SITE PLAN (C-1)(p6) A-1: Expected: FLOOR PLANS (A-1) | Actual: FLOOR PLAN (A-1)(p9) A-2: Expected: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS & BUILDING SE...

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, 10 mismatched out of 26 sheets

Summary: The building section shows the Proposed Game Room with an interior ceiling height of 6'-8" and a lower ceiling section at 3'-6". CBC Section 1208.2 requires occupiable and habitable spaces to have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet 6 inches. A game room is an occupiable space intended for human use. The 6'-8" dimension is 10 inches below the required 7'-6" minimum. Even applying Exception...

Why it matters: This deficiency would be caught during framing or final inspection and would require either raising the roof/floor assembly to achieve compliant ceiling heights or reclassifying the space as non-occupiable (e.g., attic storage), which would negate the project's intent. As constructed per these pl...

Suggested next step: Request the architect to revise the design of the Proposed Game Room to achieve a minimum ceiling height of 7 feet 6 inches in accordance with CBC Section 1208.2, or demonstrate compliance with the sloped ceiling exception by achieving 7'-6" in at least one-half the area. Clar...

RFI draft: Request the architect to revise the design of the Proposed Game Room to achieve a minimum ceiling height of 7 feet 6 inches in accordance with CBC Section 1208.2, or demonstrate compliance with the sloped ceiling exception by achieving 7'-6" in at...

Summary: The stair from the main house level up to the proposed game room is annotated as '11R@6 3/4"=6'-2"', meaning the game room floor is only 6'-2" (74 inches) above the main house floor level. The stairwell is located within the footprint of the game room above, so the main-level landing and lower stair treads are directly beneath the game room floor structure. Even with zero floor structure depth ...

Why it matters: This headroom deficiency would be identified during framing inspection and would halt construction until resolved. Corrective measures could be substantial: increasing the total stair rise (requiring a higher game room floor or lower main floor), repositioning the stairwell so the landing is outs...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the stairway headroom at the main-level landing beneath the game room floor. With a floor-to-floor rise of 6'-2" (74"), the available headroom including floor structure appears to be well below the 80-inch minimum required by CBC Section 1003.3.1 and the 7'-0" m...

RFI draft: Please clarify the stairway headroom at the main-level landing beneath the game room floor. With a floor-to-floor rise of 6'-2" (74"), the available headroom including floor structure appears to be well below the 80-inch minimum required by CBC Se...

Summary: The drawings specify that the exterior bearing walls for the 'NEW GARAGE' (first floor) are to be framed with '2x4 STUD WALL TYP.'. However, the 'PROPOSED GAME ROOM' (second floor) located directly above the garage specifies its exterior walls as '2x6 STUD WALL TYP.'. Because both the garage and game room share the exact same 22'-0" overall width footprint, framing a wider 5.5-inch nominal 2x6 ...

Why it matters: This drafting mistake creates a critical structural failure point. A building inspector or structural engineer will reject the framing during inspection because the second-story bearing walls are not fully supported by the structure below. This will cause major construction delays and cost overru...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the exterior wall framing dimensions for the New Garage and the Proposed Game Room above it. Revise the details so that the lower bearing walls are equal to or wider than the second-story walls they support (e.g., upgrade the garage walls to 2x6 studs).

RFI draft: Please clarify the exterior wall framing dimensions for the New Garage and the Proposed Game Room above it. Revise the details so that the lower bearing walls are equal to or wider than the second-story walls they support (e.g., upgrade the garage...

Summary: The building section shows the Proposed Game Room with a ceiling height of 6'-8" (80 inches). Per Section 1208.2, occupiable spaces and habitable spaces shall have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet 6 inches (90 inches). A game room is a habitable space used for living/recreation. At 6'-8", the ceiling is 10 inches below the required minimum. Even the reduced 7'-0" ceiling height permitte...

Why it matters: This will cause a plan check rejection. The floor-to-ceiling assembly between the garage and game room would need to be redesigned to achieve at least 7'-6" clear ceiling height in the game room, which may impact the overall building height, roof framing, or garage slab elevation. Alternatively, ...

Suggested next step: Request the architect to revise the floor/ceiling assembly and/or building section to achieve a minimum 7'-6" ceiling height in the Proposed Game Room as required by Section 1208.2, or reclassify the space to a use that allows a reduced ceiling height. Clarify how the overall ...

RFI draft: Request the architect to revise the floor/ceiling assembly and/or building section to achieve a minimum 7'-6" ceiling height in the Proposed Game Room as required by Section 1208.2, or reclassify the space to a use that allows a reduced ceiling he...

Summary: The Design Data explicitly states the building has "ONE (1)" story. However, the Scope of Work indicates a new garage is being constructed with a "PROPOSED GAME ROOM ABOVE". Because the game room is placed on an upper level, it must be evaluated as either a mezzanine or an additional story. The game room area (447 SF) exceeds one-third of the floor area of the garage below (1/3 of 527 SF = 175....

Why it matters: Misclassifying a two-story addition as a one-story structure will result in a plan check rejection, as the building's height and area must be evaluated for fire, life-safety, and structural requirements appropriate for a multi-story building. This fundamental misclassification impacts structural ...

Suggested next step: Please revise the Design Data to accurately classify the building as a two-story structure and ensure all relevant multi-story code requirements are met, or redesign the proposed game room to comply with the maximum allowable mezzanine area (175.6 SF) per CBC 505.2.1.

RFI draft: Please revise the Design Data to accurately classify the building as a two-story structure and ensure all relevant multi-story code requirements are met, or redesign the proposed game room to comply with the maximum allowable mezzanine area (175.6...

Summary: The floor plans indicate a new attached private garage (identified by the 'CAR CHARGER' and 'DOOR OPENER') that shares a communicating opening with the interior of the existing dwelling unit. According to CBC Section 915.1.5, carbon monoxide detection is required in dwelling units with attached private garages. Although the 'ELECTRICAL SYMBOLS' legend on this sheet explicitly defines a 'CARBON ...

Why it matters: Failing to locate and wire required carbon monoxide detectors poses a critical life safety hazard to the occupants, as dangerous vehicle exhaust from the attached garage could migrate into the home. This omission will result in failed building and fire safety inspections, preventing occupancy app...

Suggested next step: Please revise the electrical floor plans to specify the locations of all required carbon monoxide detectors within the dwelling unit, in compliance with CBC Section 915.1.5.

RFI draft: Please revise the electrical floor plans to specify the locations of all required carbon monoxide detectors within the dwelling unit, in compliance with CBC Section 915.1.5.

Summary: The window schedule on sheet A-2 lists all window heights as 4'-0" (windows A and B at 4'-8"x4'-0"; windows C, D, E at various widths x4'-0") and includes a duplicate mark "E" (3'-0"x4'-0", CASEMENT) with no window F entry. The window schedule on sheet A-3 lists windows A and B at 4'-8"x3'-0", windows C, D, and E with 3'-4" heights, and correctly includes window F as 3'-0"x3'-4" FIXED (not CASE...

Why it matters: This discrepancy will cause confusion for window ordering and rough opening framing. Incorrect window sizes will affect energy calculations (U-factor, SHGC), Title 24 compliance documentation, and structural header sizing. The CASEMENT vs FIXED type mismatch for window F affects ventilation and p...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct window sizes (height) for all windows A through F and confirm the frame type for window F (CASEMENT per A-2 or FIXED per A-3). Please correct the duplicate "E" mark on sheet A-2 to "F" and reconcile the window schedule between sheets A-2 and A-3 to e...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct window sizes (height) for all windows A through F and confirm the frame type for window F (CASEMENT per A-2 or FIXED per A-3). Please correct the duplicate "E" mark on sheet A-2 to "F" and reconcile the window schedule b...

Summary: The existing house is labeled with three different areas across the drawing set. On C-1 (Existing Site Plan), the house is labeled as 'EXIST. HOUSE 1,436 SF'. On D-1 (Demolition Plan), it is labeled as 'EXISTING HOUSE TO REMAIN 1,524 SF'. On A-1 (Floor Plan), it is labeled as 'EXISTING HOUSE TO REMAIN 1,673 SF'. The Design Data table on C-1 states 'EXISTING HOUSE: 1,673 SF', consistent with A-1...

Why it matters: The 149 SF discrepancy between D-1 (1,524 SF) and A-1 (1,673 SF) is critical because both sheets label the same structure as 'EXISTING HOUSE TO REMAIN.' This inconsistency affects total floor area calculations, lot coverage ratios, and the floor area ratio calculated as 'FLOOR AREA RATIO: 1,673/1...

Suggested next step: Request clarification on the correct existing house area to remain. Confirm whether the area is 1,436 SF (per C-1 site plan), 1,524 SF (per D-1 demolition plan), or 1,673 SF (per A-1 floor plan and Design Data). Revise all sheets to reflect a single consistent area and update ...

RFI draft: Request clarification on the correct existing house area to remain. Confirm whether the area is 1,436 SF (per C-1 site plan), 1,524 SF (per D-1 demolition plan), or 1,673 SF (per A-1 floor plan and Design Data). Revise all sheets to reflect a sing...

Summary: The lower floor plan notes the staircase consists of two flights: 11 risers at 6 3/4" (totaling 6'-2") and 6 risers at 6" (totaling 3'-0"), yielding a total stair rise of 9'-2". However, building sections 1 and 2 show the 9'-2" dimension denotes the garage ceiling height (from slab to the 5/8" gypsum board ceiling). Above the ceiling is a floor framing assembly consisting of 14" TJI joists and ...

Why it matters: This is a severe geometric framing conflict. The staircase as specified on the floor plan will physically fall more than 15 inches short of reaching the upper floor level. The staircase layout, riser heights, and/or structural elevations must be completely redesigned to allow access to the propos...

Suggested next step: Please review the staircase dimensions. The floor plan indicates a total stair rise of 9'-2", but the sections show 9'-2" as the garage ceiling height, with 14" joists and subfloor above it (meaning floor-to-floor height is roughly 10'-5"). Please provide revised stair layout ...

RFI draft: Please review the staircase dimensions. The floor plan indicates a total stair rise of 9'-2", but the sections show 9'-2" as the garage ceiling height, with 14" joists and subfloor above it (meaning floor-to-floor height is roughly 10'-5"). Please...

Summary: The 2nd Floor Framing Plan specifies a '1-1/2 x 14 LVL 1.8E BM' at the stair opening area. The '1.8E' designation indicates a modulus of elasticity of 1,800,000 psi. However, the Structural Notes on S2 require that Microlams (LVLs) shall conform to a minimum E = 1,900,000 psi. The specified beam is 100,000 psi below the minimum required E value, directly contradicting the project structural spe...

Why it matters: Using an LVL with a lower modulus of elasticity than specified will result in greater deflection under load than what the engineer designed for. This could lead to excessive floor deflection, cracking in finishes, and potentially inadequate structural performance. The beam supports a wall above a...

Suggested next step: Request clarification from the Engineer of Record on the LVL beam specification at the stair opening. Should the beam be upgraded to a minimum 1.9E LVL (E = 1,900,000 psi) to comply with the Structural Notes, or should the beam size be increased to compensate for the lower E v...

RFI draft: Request clarification from the Engineer of Record on the LVL beam specification at the stair opening. Should the beam be upgraded to a minimum 1.9E LVL (E = 1,900,000 psi) to comply with the Structural Notes, or should the beam size be increased t...

Summary: The Design Data states "NO. OF STORY: ONE (1)" and the Scope of Work states "CONSTRUCT NEW WOOD FRAMED GARAGE WITH PROPOSED GAME ROOM ABOVE." The Design Data shows the new garage is 527 SF and the proposed game room is 447 SF. Since the game room is located above the garage, for it to not count as a story it would need to qualify as a mezzanine under Section 505.2. However, Section 505.2 limits...

Why it matters: An incorrect story count directly affects compliance verification under Table 503 (Section 503.1), which governs allowable height in stories for the given construction type and occupancy. Plan review will identify this discrepancy, likely resulting in a plan check correction requiring redesignati...

Suggested next step: Request the architect to correct the Design Data to reflect the actual number of stories as TWO (2), and confirm that the building complies with Table 503 height and story limitations for Type V-B construction with R-3 occupancy at two stories. Verify that all related code req...

RFI draft: Request the architect to correct the Design Data to reflect the actual number of stories as TWO (2), and confirm that the building complies with Table 503 height and story limitations for Type V-B construction with R-3 occupancy at two stories. Ve...

Summary: Building Sections 2 and 3 on sheet A-3 explicitly detail the exterior wall assembly layers, showing wood studs, 1/2" plywood sheathing, and cement board siding with no water-resistive barrier (WRB) between the sheathing and siding. Section 2 describes the lower walls as 2x4@16" o.c. studs with 1/2" plywood and cement board siding to match existing, and the upper walls as 2x6@16" o.c. with simil...

Why it matters: Without a water-resistive barrier, moisture penetrating past the cement board siding would directly contact the plywood sheathing and wood framing, leading to potential water damage, mold growth, and structural deterioration. This omission would likely be identified during plan review or field in...

Suggested next step: Request the architect to add a water-resistive barrier (minimum No. 15 asphalt felt per ASTM D 226 or approved equivalent) to the exterior wall assembly details in Building Sections 2 and 3, shown between the plywood sheathing and the cement board siding, in compliance with CB...

RFI draft: Request the architect to add a water-resistive barrier (minimum No. 15 asphalt felt per ASTM D 226 or approved equivalent) to the exterior wall assembly details in Building Sections 2 and 3, shown between the plywood sheathing and the cement board...

Summary: The DESIGN DATA lists the Occupancy Type as only R-3 (SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING) despite the scope including a NEW GARAGE: 527 SF. Under CBC Section 302.1, portions of structures must be classified into their respective occupancy groups. Because the 527 SF garage exceeds 10 percent of the combined story area (1,831 SF house + 527 SF garage), it cannot be classified as an accessory occupancy per Se...

Why it matters: Failing to classify the garage as a Group U occupancy can lead to incorrect applications of fire separation, allowable area, and egress requirements between the R-3 dwelling and the Group U garage, potentially resulting in plan check rejection or construction delays.

Suggested next step: Please update the Occupancy Type in the Design Data to explicitly include Group U for the new garage, and specify whether the occupancies are separated or nonseparated per CBC Section 508.

RFI draft: Please update the Occupancy Type in the Design Data to explicitly include Group U for the new garage, and specify whether the occupancies are separated or nonseparated per CBC Section 508.

Summary: The structural notes require ACI-318 splicing and rough carpentry to conform to the "latest edition," and roof truss designs to conform to the "2024 CBC." However, CBC Section 101.9 mandates that only standards effective at the time of permit application apply. Additionally, CBC Section 101.5 specifies that referenced standards are adopted strictly by their specific "title and date of publicati...

Why it matters: Submitting deferred truss calculations based on the 2024 CBC will likely result in plan check rejection, as the building official must evaluate the design against the code effective at the time of the permit application. Furthermore, citing the "latest edition" for ACI and IBC standards creates a...

Suggested next step: Please revise the structural notes to explicitly mandate compliance with the code edition effective for this permit and its specifically dated reference standards, removing all references to the "2024 CBC" and "latest edition".

RFI draft: Please revise the structural notes to explicitly mandate compliance with the code edition effective for this permit and its specifically dated reference standards, removing all references to the "2024 CBC" and "latest edition".