Plan Review: 73 Issues Found

Summary: 143 index entries | 87 perfect matches | 7 mismatched | 49 missing Mismatched (7): S0.01: Expected: COVER SHEET & SPECIAL INSPECTIONS (S0.01) | Actual: COVER SHEET & SPECIAL INSPECTION (S0.01)(p52) S8.05: Expected: WOOD - FRAMING DETAILS (S8.05) | Actual: WOOD - FRAMING DETAILS (S8.04)(p64) P0.01: Expected: SYMBOLS, LEGENDS, AND ABBREVIATIONS - PLUMBING (P0.01) | Act...

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: 49 missing, 7 mismatched out of 143 sheets

Summary: The Code Plan on G2.01 explicitly designates the Electrical room with a 1-hour fire-rated enclosure ("1-HOUR WALLS AND LID AT ELECTRICAL ROOM"). Correlating with this, the Door Schedule on A8.01 identifies Door 123A as "45-MIN RATED" and assigns it to Hardware Group 6b. However, the Hardware Schedule for Group 6b ("Storage/Utility Rooms Fire Rated") specifies standard hinges and leaves the CLOS...

Why it matters: Failing to provide a self-closing device (such as a surface-mounted closer or spring hinges) means the fire-rated door could be left open, breaking the integrity of the 1-hour fire barrier required for the electrical room. This poses a severe life safety risk, violates the Building Code/Fire Code...

Suggested next step: Please revise Hardware Group 6b in the Hardware Schedule to include an appropriate self-closing device (e.g., surface closer) to ensure Door 123A maintains its required 45-minute fire rating and complies with the 1-hour electrical room enclosure indicated on the G2.01 Code Plan.

RFI draft: Please revise Hardware Group 6b in the Hardware Schedule to include an appropriate self-closing device (e.g., surface closer) to ensure Door 123A maintains its required 45-minute fire rating and complies with the 1-hour electrical room enclosure i...

Summary: The Door Schedule designates Door 123A for the Electrical room as '45-MIN RATED' and assigns it to Hardware Group 6b. However, Hardware Group 6b explicitly omits a door closer ('--' in the CLOSER column) and does not specify spring hinges. Fire-rated doors must be self-closing or automatic-closing.

Why it matters: Failure to provide a self-closing device on a fire-rated door violates life safety codes (e.g., NFPA 80) and will result in a failed building inspection, as the fire barrier will not properly protect against fire spread.

Suggested next step: Please revise Hardware Group 6b to include an appropriate surface-mounted closer or spring hinges to comply with fire-rating requirements for Door 123A.

RFI draft: Please revise Hardware Group 6b to include an appropriate surface-mounted closer or spring hinges to comply with fire-rating requirements for Door 123A.

Summary: The architectural Roof Plan (A2.04) shows continuous "6\" HALF-ROUND GUTTERS" along both the North edge (near horizontal Grid 3) and the South edge (spanning vertical Grids F, G, H) of the main building roof, indicating that the roof sheds water to both opposite eaves (implying a dual-pitched or gable-like roof geometry). However, the structural Truss Plan Diagram (A2.03) specifies single-slope...

Why it matters: This is a critical coordination issue between the architectural roof massing and structural framing design. If the trusses are fabricated as continuous single-slope elements as shown on the structural drawings, the constructed roof will not be able to drain to both sides, rendering the architectu...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended roof geometry and drainage strategy for the main building. If the roof is intended to be a single-slope shed roof, please revise the architectural Roof Plan (A2.04) to remove the gutters and downspouts from the high edge. If the roof is intended to ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended roof geometry and drainage strategy for the main building. If the roof is intended to be a single-slope shed roof, please revise the architectural Roof Plan (A2.04) to remove the gutters and downspouts from the high edg...

Summary: The 'STORM AND SANITARY STRUCTURES' schedule indicates that SSMH #2 has an 'INV OUT 8"ø (W) = 96.5''. This directs flow to the West, toward SSMH #3. However, the schedule lists SSMH #3 with an 'INV IN 8"ø (E) = 97.8''. This means the receiving pipe at SSMH #3 is mathematically 1.3 feet higher than the discharging pipe at SSMH #2, which would require an impossible uphill gravity flow for a sanit...

Why it matters: Gravity sewer systems must maintain a positive downward slope. An uphill flow path or contradictory invert elevation data will halt utility connections and civil design, requiring utility potholing, a new survey, or a redesign of the sanitary sewer system to correct before construction can proceed.

Suggested next step: Please verify the correct invert elevations and flow directions for SSMH #2 and SSMH #3. Does the line flow East to West or West to East, and what are the accurate invert elevations to ensure positive drainage?

RFI draft: Please verify the correct invert elevations and flow directions for SSMH #2 and SSMH #3. Does the line flow East to West or West to East, and what are the accurate invert elevations to ensure positive drainage?

Summary: The WATER SCHEDULE on the Utility Plan specifies that 'WM-1' requires a 2" water meter. However, the SHEET LEGEND directs the contractor to use Detail 6 on sheet C4.01 for water meters, which is explicitly dimensioned and annotated for a 3/4" water service piping and saddle installation.

Why it matters: Using a standard 3/4" detail for a 2" water service installation will lead to procurement and installation errors. A 2" meter requires significantly larger service piping, different valves, and often a larger vault rather than the typical 3/4" armorcast box, which could delay construction and fai...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required installation details for the 2" water meter (WM-1). The referenced typical detail (6/C4.01) is for a 3/4" service. Should a new detail be provided for the 2" water service and meter assembly?

RFI draft: Please clarify the required installation details for the 2" water meter (WM-1). The referenced typical detail (6/C4.01) is for a 3/4" service. Should a new detail be provided for the 2" water service and meter assembly?

Summary: The Police Building elevations on sheet A3.01 explicitly include section cut markers that reference details "1/A4.01" and "2/A4.01". However, on sheet A4.01, details 1 and 2 are explicitly titled "City Hall - Cross Section A" and "City Hall - Cross Section B". The elevations for the Police building are pointing to building sections drawn for a completely different structure (City Hall).

Why it matters: Referencing sections of a completely different building structure leaves the contractor without the correct cross-sections for the Police Building. This ambiguity can lead to errors in structural framing, elevation heights, and interior coordination, causing RFI delays during construction.

Suggested next step: Please provide the correct building section drawings for the Police Building and update the section reference callouts on the Police Building elevations (Sheet A3.01) to point to the correct sheet and detail numbers.

RFI draft: Please provide the correct building section drawings for the Police Building and update the section reference callouts on the Police Building elevations (Sheet A3.01) to point to the correct sheet and detail numbers.

Summary: Wall Section 5 on A5.01 depicts a roof structure intersecting a vertical exterior wall (a parapet-like inside corner condition) and explicitly calls out detail 3/A9.01 for this connection. However, Detail 3 on A9.01 is titled 'Section Detail - High Eave at Board and Batten Wall' and visually illustrates a sloped roof terminating at a flush exterior eave/overhang (an outside corner), which direc...

Why it matters: Referencing an incorrect architectural detail for the roof-to-wall intersection can lead to improper framing, flashing installation, and potential water infiltration at the main entry parapet. The builder needs the correct detail for the intersecting wall condition.

Suggested next step: Please clarify if the roof intersection callout on Wall Section 5/A5.01 should reference a different detail (such as 11/A9.01 'Section Detail - Top of Low Roof' which shows an intersecting wall), or issue the correct parapet/intersection detail for this condition.

RFI draft: Please clarify if the roof intersection callout on Wall Section 5/A5.01 should reference a different detail (such as 11/A9.01 'Section Detail - Top of Low Roof' which shows an intersecting wall), or issue the correct parapet/intersection detail fo...

Summary: Plan Note 4 on A2.01 references A9.00 for Typical Exterior Assemblies. On A9.00, the typical exterior wall assembly details (such as W1) specify "WOOD FRAMING". However, Detail 2 on A9.00, which is specifically for "INSULATED REFRIDGERANT PIPING @ EXT WALLS", includes a note stating that insulation is not to come into contact "WITH METAL STUDS", implying the exterior walls are metal-framed.

Why it matters: A conflict between wood framing and metal studs at the exterior walls impacts structural load paths, thermal bridging calculations, and mechanical rough-in methods. Establishing a uniform exterior framing material is critical to prevent errors and delays during construction.

Suggested next step: Confirm whether the typical exterior walls are to be constructed with wood framing (as shown in wall types W1, W3, and W4) or metal studs (as implied in Detail 2/A9.00), and revise the corresponding details to reflect the correct structural system.

RFI draft: Confirm whether the typical exterior walls are to be constructed with wood framing (as shown in wall types W1, W3, and W4) or metal studs (as implied in Detail 2/A9.00), and revise the corresponding details to reflect the correct structural system.

Summary: Sheet A2.02 RCP Note 10 states that painted gypsum board ceilings may be suspended and refers to A10.04 for details. On sheet A10.04, Ceiling General Note 1 explicitly requires an '8 GA WIRE @ GYPSUM BOARD CEILING'. However, suspended ceiling details 16/A10.04 and 18/A10.04, which include 'PTD GYP BD, W.O.' (Painted Gypsum Board, Where Occurs) in their assemblies, specify the use of a '12 GA VE...

Why it matters: Gypsum board ceilings are significantly heavier than standard acoustic ceiling tiles. Using an undersized 12 gauge hanger wire instead of the required 8 gauge wire poses a major structural and safety risk, potentially leading to ceiling failure or non-compliance with seismic code requirements.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required hanger wire gauge for suspended painted gypsum board ceilings. Should it be 8 GA as per A10.04 Ceiling General Note 1, or 12 GA as shown in details 16/A10.04 and 18/A10.04?

RFI draft: Please clarify the required hanger wire gauge for suspended painted gypsum board ceilings. Should it be 8 GA as per A10.04 Ceiling General Note 1, or 12 GA as shown in details 16/A10.04 and 18/A10.04?

Summary: On sheet A4.02, 'City Hall - Longitudinal Section' (1/A4.02) identifies the roof truss over the Restroom and Laundry/Storage areas as 'T.O. Truss @ GL 1' at 121' - 9 1/2". However, on sheet A4.01, 'City Hall - Cross Section F' (6/A4.01), which cuts through this exact same Restroom area, shows the roof structure is actually defined by 'T.O. Truss @ GL 5' at 122' - 3 1/2" and 'B.O. Garage Truss' ...

Why it matters: Incorrectly labeling the truss grid and elevation in the longitudinal section can cause confusion during truss fabrication and structural framing, potentially leading to incorrect roof heights or slopes over the City Hall Restroom/Laundry area.

Suggested next step: Please revise the truss elevation marker in City Hall Longitudinal Section 1/A4.02 over the Restroom and Laundry areas to correctly reference 'T.O. Truss @ GL 5' at 122'-3 1/2" (or the applicable Garage Truss elevation) to match Cross Section F on A4.01.

RFI draft: Please revise the truss elevation marker in City Hall Longitudinal Section 1/A4.02 over the Restroom and Laundry areas to correctly reference 'T.O. Truss @ GL 5' at 122'-3 1/2" (or the applicable Garage Truss elevation) to match Cross Section F on...

Summary: The exterior elevations for the City Hall building on sheet A3.01 (South Elevation and East Elevation) establish the primary top of truss height as "T.O. Truss @ GL 5 122' - 3 1/2"". However, the corresponding "City Hall - Longitudinal Section" (1/A4.02) erroneously uses the elevation marker for the Police building, indicating "T.O. Truss @ GL 1 121' - 9 1/2"". The Grid Line 1 height is correct...

Why it matters: Providing incorrect top-of-truss elevation data on the primary longitudinal section will lead to critical framing errors. If the City Hall roof is framed to the Police building's reference height of 121'-9 1/2", it will be constructed 6 inches lower than intended, causing cascading coordination i...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct Top of Truss elevation for the City Hall building. Should the elevation marker on section 1/A4.02 be revised to "T.O. Truss @ GL 5 122' - 3 1/2"" to match the A3.01 exterior elevations?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct Top of Truss elevation for the City Hall building. Should the elevation marker on section 1/A4.02 be revised to "T.O. Truss @ GL 5 122' - 3 1/2"" to match the A3.01 exterior elevations?

Summary: The First Floor Plan (A2.01) uses callouts "1 A4.02" and "2 A4.02" pointing to the West exterior wall, but sheet A4.02 provides full interior longitudinal sections, not exterior elevations. Furthermore, the room sequences in the sections do not match the floor plan. Section 1/A4.02 shows a continuous cut through "Open Office", "Corridor", "Restroom", "Restroom", "Electrical", and "Laundry/Stora...

Why it matters: Without valid section cut lines spanning the floor plan, the exact location of the longitudinal sections cannot be determined. The contradictions in room adjacencies indicate the sections may be outdated or drawn incorrectly. This will lead to major coordination issues for framing, MEP routing, a...

Suggested next step: Please provide accurate section cut lines on the A2.01 First Floor Plan for the longitudinal sections on A4.02. Additionally, please update the room sequences and adjacencies in Sections 1/A4.02 and 2/A4.02 to accurately reflect the floor plan layout (e.g., separating the Duty...

RFI draft: Please provide accurate section cut lines on the A2.01 First Floor Plan for the longitudinal sections on A4.02. Additionally, please update the room sequences and adjacencies in Sections 1/A4.02 and 2/A4.02 to accurately reflect the floor plan lay...

Summary: The First Floor Plan (A2.01) indicates an elevation change or secondary tier at the Council Chambers dais, tagging it with 'MP1' and '+18"'. However, the interior details on A10.05 (including Section 6/A10.05 and Elevation 4/A10.05) depict only a single-tier dais resting directly on the 'First Floor 105' - 6"' slab, with the base dimensioned starting at '0' - 6"'. There is no indication of an 1...

Why it matters: This discrepancy affects structural, architectural, and millwork coordination. If the Council Chambers design requires an elevated 18-inch platform or a two-tiered dais for sightlines, the millwork details and structural slabs must be updated to reflect this. Building the dais directly on the flo...

Suggested next step: Clarify if the Council Chambers dais is intended to have an 18" raised platform or a secondary tier as indicated by the '+18"' tag on A2.01, or if it sits directly on the First Floor slab as shown in the details on A10.05. Update the plans and millwork details to reflect the c...

RFI draft: Clarify if the Council Chambers dais is intended to have an 18" raised platform or a secondary tier as indicated by the '+18"' tag on A2.01, or if it sits directly on the First Floor slab as shown in the details on A10.05. Update the plans and mil...

Summary: The North Elevation calls out detail "5/A5.01" at the roofline between grid lines E and D. However, section 5/A5.01 is explicitly the "Wall Section at City Hall Main Entry" and depicts a "STAINED AND SEALED CEDAR TRELLIS, SSD" projecting from the wall, as well as "STOREFRONT GLAZING AND DOORS". The North Elevation at this location shows typical vertical panel siding with no main entry trellis o...

Why it matters: Referencing the Main Entry section on a typical plain wall of the North Elevation creates confusion about the intended architectural features and materials required at that location. This could lead to incorrect material estimates and construction delays if field crews attempt to frame a trellis ...

Suggested next step: Please confirm if detail 5/A5.01 is mistakenly called out on the North Elevation between grids E and D. Should this callout be revised to reference a typical wall section (e.g., 6/A5.01) instead?

RFI draft: Please confirm if detail 5/A5.01 is mistakenly called out on the North Elevation between grids E and D. Should this callout be revised to reference a typical wall section (e.g., 6/A5.01) instead?