Plan Review: 87 Issues Found

Summary: 62 index entries | 58 perfect matches | 4 mismatched | 0 missing Mismatched (4): C0.1: Expected: GENERAL NOTES AND INFORMATION (C0.1) | Actual: GENERAL NOTES & INFORMATION (C0.1)(p2) P0.1: Expected: PLUMBING LEGEIND, SCHEDULES & NOTES (P0.1) | Actual: PLUMBING LEGEND, SCHEDULES, & NOTES (P0.1)(p42) M0.1: Expected: MECHANICAL LEGEND, SCHEDULES AND GENERAL NOTES (M0.1) | ...

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: 0 missing, 4 mismatched out of 62 sheets

Summary: The Design Data in the General Notes specifies a floor live load of 40 PSF for restaurants/bars. However, 2025 CBC Table 1607.1, Item 9 requires a minimum uniformly distributed live load of 100 PSF for dining rooms and restaurants. The specified 40 PSF is less than half the code-required value, meaning all structural members (beams, joists, columns, footings) supporting restaurant/bar floor are...

Why it matters: This under-design of floor live loads for restaurant/bar areas poses a serious structural safety risk. Using 40 PSF instead of the required 100 PSF would result in undersized framing members, connections, and foundations throughout the restaurant/bar portions of the building. This will fail plan ...

Suggested next step: Request the Structural Engineer of Record to confirm the floor live load for restaurant/bar areas. Per 2025 CBC Table 1607.1 Item 9, dining rooms and restaurants require a minimum uniformly distributed live load of 100 PSF. Please revise the design data and verify that all str...

RFI draft: Request the Structural Engineer of Record to confirm the floor live load for restaurant/bar areas. Per 2025 CBC Table 1607.1 Item 9, dining rooms and restaurants require a minimum uniformly distributed live load of 100 PSF. Please revise the desig...

Summary: The Plywood Panel Schedule in Detail 14 specifies Mark H shear wall anchor bolts as "1/4" DIA. AT 8" O.C." Mark H represents the highest-demand shear wall in the schedule (8d at 3" edge nailing, 3x sill plate, 3x studs at abutting panels, sheathed on both sides, tightest bolt spacing). However, the preceding marks with lesser demands — Mark F (8d at 3", 16" O.C. bolts) and Mark G (8d at 4", 16"...

Why it matters: If constructed as drawn, the Mark H shear wall sill plate connections would have drastically insufficient anchorage capacity, failing to develop the required shear resistance at the foundation. This would be immediately rejected during structural inspection, requiring removal and replacement of a...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer of record confirm that Mark H anchor bolts in the Plywood Panel Schedule (Detail 14) should be 3/4" DIA. AT 8" O.C. (not 1/4" DIA.) and issue a revised schedule correcting the anchor bolt diameter.

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer of record confirm that Mark H anchor bolts in the Plywood Panel Schedule (Detail 14) should be 3/4" DIA. AT 8" O.C. (not 1/4" DIA.) and issue a revised schedule correcting the anchor bolt diameter.

Summary: The Project Data specifies the occupancy as Group A-2 and indicates that Building F is a two-story structure with an occupant load of 32 on the second floor. However, the data also explicitly states that the project is 'NON-SPRINKLERED'. According to CBC Section 903.2.1.2, an automatic sprinkler system is required throughout stories containing Group A-2 occupancies when the fire area is located...

Why it matters: Omitting a required automatic sprinkler system in a multi-story assembly occupancy is a severe life safety hazard. This violation will result in the immediate rejection of the building permit. Redesigning the project to include a sprinkler system will cause significant cost increases, require add...

Suggested next step: Please clarify how the non-sprinklered design complies with CBC 903.2.1.2 Condition 3 for the two-story A-2 occupancy in Building F. If a sprinkler system is required, please revise the project data and coordinate the necessary fire protection design and utilities.

RFI draft: Please clarify how the non-sprinklered design complies with CBC 903.2.1.2 Condition 3 for the two-story A-2 occupancy in Building F. If a sprinkler system is required, please revise the project data and coordinate the necessary fire protection des...

Summary: Detail 13/SS.3 shows an HSS10X6X1/4 beam framing into an HSS6X6X1/4 column. The weld symbols for the connections specify 1/4" bevel groove welds on both the arrow side and the other side (indicated by the 1/4" size and bevel symbol above and below the reference line). Because HSS members are closed tubular sections, the inside of the tube (the 'other side') is completely inaccessible and physic...

Why it matters: Specifying an unbuildable connection violates the requirement of CBC Section 2202.1 to design and fabricate structural steel in accordance with AISC 360. This physical impossibility will cause an immediate halt during fabrication and require a structural RFI to correct the joint detail before wor...

Suggested next step: Revise the weld symbols in Detail 13/SS.3 to remove the 'other side' welds. Specify appropriate single-sided welds (e.g., CJP with backing, or PJP) on the accessible exterior faces only.

RFI draft: Revise the weld symbols in Detail 13/SS.3 to remove the 'other side' welds. Specify appropriate single-sided welds (e.g., CJP with backing, or PJP) on the accessible exterior faces only.

Summary: The Title 24 NRCC-PRF-E form (Table H9) reports physically impossible values for the conditioned area of the spaces relative to their occupant load (e.g., '1-A KITCHEN ZONE' is listed as having 0.96 square feet but accommodating 48 people). This indicates a gross data entry error, likely entering area in thousands of square feet (kSF) instead of actual square feet (SF).

Why it matters: Because the space parameters are fundamentally incorrect, the Title 24 energy model and the calculated required outdoor air-ventilation rates are completely inaccurate. This directly violates Section 120.1(a)2, which requires the outdoor air-ventilation rate to be accurately and clearly identifie...

Suggested next step: Review and correct the zone areas in the EnergyPro model to reflect actual square footage, recalculate the ventilation requirements, and regenerate the Title 24 compliance report.

RFI draft: Review and correct the zone areas in the EnergyPro model to reflect actual square footage, recalculate the ventilation requirements, and regenerate the Title 24 compliance report.

Summary: The exterior exit stairway serving the second floor of Building F is shown on the plan and elevation drawings as being directly adjacent to the container building structure with no meaningful separation. The second floor plan shows the 4'-0" wide stairway immediately alongside the building wall. The west elevation clearly depicts the stairway and its platform/landing running directly against th...

Why it matters: This non-compliance with Section 1027.5 is a fundamental design and site layout issue that would prevent building permit approval during plan check. Resolving this will likely require either relocating the stairway at least 10 feet from the building (significantly altering the site plan and struc...

Suggested next step: Request the architect to address the fire separation distance between the exterior exit stairway (including all landings and the platform) and the container building per Section 1027.5, which requires a minimum of 10 feet to other portions of the building. Confirm whether the ...

RFI draft: Request the architect to address the fire separation distance between the exterior exit stairway (including all landings and the platform) and the container building per Section 1027.5, which requires a minimum of 10 feet to other portions of the ...

Summary: Keynote 3 on SS.1 describes the concrete pedestal as having '4 - #4 VERT.' reinforcing bars and references Details 24/SS.2 and 31/SS.2 for further information. However, Detail 31 on SS.2 (Section at Pedestal) specifies '4 - #5 VERT. DOWELS' for the same 18" square concrete pedestal. The vertical bar size is #4 in the keynote but #5 in the referenced detail, which is a direct contradiction for t...

Why it matters: This conflict affects the four HSS6X6X1/4 column pedestals shown in the central courtyard area of the foundation plan. A #5 bar has approximately 60% more cross-sectional area than a #4 bar, meaning using the wrong size could result in either an under-designed pedestal (if #4 bars are used when #...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct vertical reinforcing bar size for the 18" square concrete pedestals: Keynote 3 on SS.1 specifies 4 - #4 vertical bars, while Detail 31/SS.2 specifies 4 - #5 vertical dowels. Which bar size governs? Please revise the conflicting document accordingly.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct vertical reinforcing bar size for the 18" square concrete pedestals: Keynote 3 on SS.1 specifies 4 - #4 vertical bars, while Detail 31/SS.2 specifies 4 - #5 vertical dowels. Which bar size governs? Please revise the conf...

Summary: Section Details 11 and 13 on sheet C3.2 explicitly show minimum 5% downward drainage slopes from the building faces to the existing adjacent concrete curbs. However, the Grading & Drainage Plan (C3.1) specifies spot elevations that make these slopes mathematically impossible. For Building A (Detail 11), the plan shows a Finished Floor (FF) of 86.33, but the existing Top of Curb (TC) is higher a...

Why it matters: If constructed per the spot elevations on the grading plan, the exterior grade will slope towards the buildings or remain flat (adverse grading). This creates a critical risk of water intrusion and foundation damage. The details require a positive drainage slope that cannot be achieved given the ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended grading at the perimeters of Buildings A and F. Should the finished floor elevations be raised to achieve the minimum 5% positive drainage slope shown in Details 11 and 13, or will alternative drainage measures be added to the plan?

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended grading at the perimeters of Buildings A and F. Should the finished floor elevations be raised to achieve the minimum 5% positive drainage slope shown in Details 11 and 13, or will alternative drainage measures be added...

Summary: Keynote 3 on the Overall Foundation Plan (SS.1) describes the concrete pedestal as having '4 - #4 VERT.' reinforcing bars, while Detail 31/SS.2 (Section at Pedestal) on the Footing Details sheet (SS.2) specifies '4 - #5 VERT. DOWELS' for the same 18" SQ. concrete pedestal. The keynote explicitly references Detail 31/SS.2 as the governing detail, yet the bar size differs between the two sheets (...

Why it matters: This discrepancy directly affects the structural capacity of the four concrete pedestals supporting HSS6X6X1/4 columns in the central courtyard area. Using #4 bars instead of #5 bars would reduce the pedestal's axial and flexural capacity. During construction, the contractor will be unable to det...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct vertical reinforcing bar size for the 18" SQ. concrete pedestals: Keynote 3 on sheet SS.1 specifies 4 - #4 VERT., while Detail 31 on sheet SS.2 specifies 4 - #5 VERT. DOWELS. Which bar size should be used?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct vertical reinforcing bar size for the 18" SQ. concrete pedestals: Keynote 3 on sheet SS.1 specifies 4 - #4 VERT., while Detail 31 on sheet SS.2 specifies 4 - #5 VERT. DOWELS. Which bar size should be used?

Summary: The west building elevation clearly shows three 3' x 7' hollow metal doors flush with the exterior wall face, with a flat parapet wall above and no awnings, roof overhangs, or door recesses depicted. The south elevation confirms a single-sloped roof behind a flat parapet, meaning no roof overhang exists on any side. These restroom and storage doors are primary exterior entries subject to foot t...

Why it matters: Without code-compliant weather protection at the three exterior doors, the building will fail plan check for CALGreen mandatory measures. Adding awnings, overhangs, or recessing the doors after construction has begun would require structural modifications to the parapet or wall framing, potential...

Suggested next step: Request the architect add weather protection at all three exterior doors on the west elevation in compliance with Section 5.407.2.2.1. Clarify whether the design will incorporate a minimum 4-foot-deep awning, a 4-foot roof overhang, a 4-foot door recess, or an equivalent metho...

RFI draft: Request the architect add weather protection at all three exterior doors on the west elevation in compliance with Section 5.407.2.2.1. Clarify whether the design will incorporate a minimum 4-foot-deep awning, a 4-foot roof overhang, a 4-foot door ...

Summary: The grading plan shows the interior courtyard concrete pavement at elevation C 86.33 at numerous locations throughout the courtyard, exactly matching the building finished floor elevation FF 86.33. Multiple spot elevations of C 86.33 are shown with dimensions of 20', 15.71', 29.02', and 31.71' between them, confirming the impervious concrete surface is flat across a large area adjacent to the b...

Why it matters: Inadequate slope on impervious surfaces adjacent to building foundations will cause water ponding against the foundations, risking moisture infiltration and potential structural damage over time. Correcting this grading deficiency will require revising the courtyard grading design to introduce ad...

Suggested next step: Request the civil engineer review and revise the courtyard grading to ensure impervious concrete surfaces within 10 feet of all building foundations are sloped not less than 2 percent away from the building per CBC Section 1804.4. Currently, spot elevations show C 86.33 from t...

RFI draft: Request the civil engineer review and revise the courtyard grading to ensure impervious concrete surfaces within 10 feet of all building foundations are sloped not less than 2 percent away from the building per CBC Section 1804.4. Currently, spot ...

Summary: Keynote 1 on the foundation plan specifies a 6" concrete slab "OVER 2" MIN. SAND OVER 10 MIL. POLY. VAPOR BARRIER". This places the sand layer between the concrete slab and the vapor retarder. However, CBC Section 1907.4 requires the vapor retarder to be placed "between the base course or subgrade and the concrete floor slab", meaning it must be located directly beneath and in contact with the ...

Why it matters: Placing a sand blotter layer over the vapor retarder creates a 'bathtub' effect that traps moisture within the sand. As the concrete cures and throughout the building's lifespan, this trapped moisture will continuously migrate upwards through the slab. This can cause significant issues such as fl...

Suggested next step: Please revise Keynote 1 on the foundation plan to specify the vapor retarder placement directly beneath the concrete floor slab and above the sand or base course, in compliance with CBC Section 1907.4.

RFI draft: Please revise Keynote 1 on the foundation plan to specify the vapor retarder placement directly beneath the concrete floor slab and above the sand or base course, in compliance with CBC Section 1907.4.

Summary: The building elevations clearly show parapet walls extending above the roof on all sides (T.O. Parapet at 12'-0", Top Plate at 9'-0"). The east elevation shows only primary drainage consisting of a continuous rain gutter and downspouts. The south elevation shows a downspout on the right edge. The west elevation shows no drainage elements. No secondary (emergency overflow) drains or scuppers are...

Why it matters: The absence of secondary overflow drainage is a common plan-check correction item that will likely be flagged during building department review, causing a permitting delay. More critically, if not addressed, a blockage in the primary gutter or downspout could cause uncontrolled water ponding on t...

Suggested next step: Request the architect provide secondary (emergency overflow) roof drains or scuppers through the parapet walls, sized and installed per Section 1502.2 and Section 1611 of the building code and Chapter 11 of the California Plumbing Code, to prevent water entrapment if the prima...

RFI draft: Request the architect provide secondary (emergency overflow) roof drains or scuppers through the parapet walls, sized and installed per Section 1502.2 and Section 1611 of the building code and Chapter 11 of the California Plumbing Code, to prevent...

Summary: The restroom lighting plan shows three separate enclosed single-user rooms. The top and bottom rooms are each equipped with emergency lighting fixtures designated '(7-BE-27)' with 'EM' marking, confirming emergency battery capability. The middle room, which contains a sink and has an occupancy sensor (OS) indicating it is intended for regular occupancy, is equipped only with a standard fixture ...

Why it matters: Section 1008.1 requires that in the event of power supply failure, means of egress illumination shall comply with Section 1008.2.4, and Section 1008.2 requires the means of egress serving a room or space to be illuminated at all times the space is occupied. None of the listed exceptions (Group U,...

Suggested next step: Request the electrical engineer confirm whether the middle restroom room requires an emergency (EM) lighting fixture. If emergency illumination is required, revise the fixture type from standard (7-B-27) to emergency-rated (7-BE-27) or equivalent to provide means of egress ill...

RFI draft: Request the electrical engineer confirm whether the middle restroom room requires an emergency (EM) lighting fixture. If emergency illumination is required, revise the fixture type from standard (7-B-27) to emergency-rated (7-BE-27) or equivalent ...