Plan Review: 35 Issues Found

Summary: 11 index entries | 3 perfect matches | 6 mismatched | 2 missing Mismatched (6): E1: Expected: ELECTRICAL PLAN (E1) | Actual: First Floor Electrical Plan (E1)(p5) S01: Expected: FOUNDATION, WALL & ROOF FRAMING PLAN (S01) | Actual: FOUNDATION, WALL BEAM AND ROOF FRAMING PLAN (S01)(p6) S02: Expected: SHEAR WALL PLAN & FRAMING ELEVATION (S02) | Actual: SHEAR WALL PLAN & ...

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: 2 missing, 6 mismatched out of 11 sheets

Summary: The grading plan establishes the proposed building finished floor elevation at FF=56.80' while the Base Flood Elevation is noted as 57.80'. The cross-sections (Section A-A and Section B-B) confirm the site is within the 100-year flood plain, with the finished floor shown below the flood plain line. Per CRC Section R322.1.4, the design flood elevation shall be, at a minimum, the base flood eleva...

Why it matters: This violation would almost certainly result in a plan check rejection by the building official, as it fundamentally contradicts the flood-resistant construction provisions of the California Residential Code. The building would be subject to flooding during a 100-year event, resulting in potentia...

Suggested next step: Request the civil engineer and project architect to revise the finished floor elevation to be at or above the design flood elevation (BFE of 57.80'), including any additional freeboard required by the local floodplain administrator. The grading plan, foundation design, and bui...

RFI draft: Request the civil engineer and project architect to revise the finished floor elevation to be at or above the design flood elevation (BFE of 57.80'), including any additional freeboard required by the local floodplain administrator. The grading pl...

Summary: The site plan shows a Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of 57.80 feet crossing the property, and spot elevations at the proposed garage location are 56.81, 57.09, 57.10, and 56.92 feet, all below the BFE of 57.80. Despite this, the design criteria on the same sheet lists FLOOD LOAD: 0. Per CRC Section R309.3, garages located in flood hazard areas shall be constructed in accordance with Section R322. Pe...

Why it matters: This discrepancy between the BFE shown on the site plan and the FLOOD LOAD: 0 in the design criteria will likely result in a plan check rejection. The building department will require the garage to comply with R322 flood-resistant construction provisions, including establishing a lowest floor ele...

Suggested next step: Request the designer clarify the flood zone designation for the proposed garage location. If the garage is within a mapped Special Flood Hazard Area (as indicated by the BFE of 57.80 on the site plan and ground elevations below BFE), revise the design criteria to reflect actua...

RFI draft: Request the designer clarify the flood zone designation for the proposed garage location. If the garage is within a mapped Special Flood Hazard Area (as indicated by the BFE of 57.80 on the site plan and ground elevations below BFE), revise the de...

Summary: The Design Criteria on sheet A1.0 specifies 'FLOOD LOAD: 0.' However, the grading cover sheet (C1) shows the proposed building with a finished floor elevation of FF=56.80, which is 1 foot below the Base Flood Elevation of 57.80. Section A-A on the Grading Plan (C2) graphically confirms the finished floor at elevation 56.80 is located below the '100 YRD FLOOD PLAIN' line. A structure with its fi...

Why it matters: Constructing a building below the Base Flood Elevation without considering flood loads poses a significant structural safety risk and likely violates FEMA floodplain management regulations and local Sacramento County building codes. This could result in permit denial, increased flood insurance co...

Suggested next step: Request clarification from the structural engineer on why FLOOD LOAD is specified as 0 when the proposed building finished floor (56.80) is below the Base Flood Elevation (57.80). Confirm whether flood loads have been analyzed and accounted for in the structural design, and wh...

RFI draft: Request clarification from the structural engineer on why FLOOD LOAD is specified as 0 when the proposed building finished floor (56.80) is below the Base Flood Elevation (57.80). Confirm whether flood loads have been analyzed and accounted for in...

Summary: The structural elevation in Document 1 specifies a heavy-duty shear wall top connection ("WSWHH-TP CONNECTOR W/ (26)SWS16150 SCREWS") to transfer lateral forces from the roof to the shear wall. However, the delegated truss calculations for the Hip Girder (Document 0) list a maximum horizontal reaction of only 26 lbs, indicating the truss has not been designed to act as a drag strut or transfer ...

Why it matters: If the truss is not engineered to handle the lateral forces transferred through the shear wall top connection, the lateral force resisting system may lack continuity and fail at this node during a seismic or high wind event.

Suggested next step: Review the delegated truss calculations against the project's lateral loading requirements. Confirm if the Hip Girder (Truss A03) is required to act as a lateral load collector and, if so, provide revised calculations that account for the shear forces transferred by the specif...

RFI draft: Review the delegated truss calculations against the project's lateral loading requirements. Confirm if the Hip Girder (Truss A03) is required to act as a lateral load collector and, if so, provide revised calculations that account for the shear fo...

Summary: The generic Fastening Schedule on the drawing indicates a minimum 24" lap splice length and '8-16d common' nails for a double top plate splice. However, the project-specific 'TOP PLATE SPLICE' detail in the specification requires a 'MIN. 60" SPLICE' and '(16) 16D COMMONS STAGGER'.

Why it matters: Following the generic fastener schedule instead of the project-specific structural details will result in undersized top plate splices with insufficient nailing. This compromises the lateral load transfer mechanism in the wall framing and will cause failed structural inspections.

Suggested next step: Please confirm that the project-specific 'TOP PLATE SPLICE' detail showing a minimum 60" splice length and (16) 16D common nails supersedes the generic Fastening Schedule which calls for a 24" splice and 8-16d nails.

RFI draft: Please confirm that the project-specific 'TOP PLATE SPLICE' detail showing a minimum 60" splice length and (16) 16D common nails supersedes the generic Fastening Schedule which calls for a 24" splice and 8-16d nails.

Summary: The title block on Sheet SD1 lists "2013 CRC" as one of the governing codes for this project, along with "2019 IBC." The current applicable California Residential Code is the 2022 CRC. Per the 2022 CRC, Section R401.1 states its provisions "shall control the design and construction of the foundation and foundation spaces for buildings," Section R601.1 states its provisions "shall control the de...

Why it matters: Referencing an outdated code edition as the governing code will be flagged during plan review by the building department, resulting in plan check rejection or at minimum an RFI requiring correction. If the design was actually performed to 2013 CRC requirements, there may be specific provisions ad...

Suggested next step: Request the design team to update the governing code references on all sheets to cite the 2022 California Residential Code (CRC) and the 2022 California Building Code (CBC). Additionally, request written confirmation that all design details, including foundation, wall framing,...

RFI draft: Request the design team to update the governing code references on all sheets to cite the 2022 California Residential Code (CRC) and the 2022 California Building Code (CBC). Additionally, request written confirmation that all design details, inclu...

Summary: The fastener schedule on this sheet places a "Roof" section header between Item 15 and Item 16. However, Items 16 through 21 describe wall construction connections: Item 16 is "Bottom plate to joist, rim joist, band joist or blocking (at braced wall panel)", Item 17 is "Top or bottom plate to stud", Item 18 is "Top plates, laps at corners and intersections", Item 19 is "1\" brace to each stud a...

Why it matters: During construction, framers and inspectors referencing this schedule for wall braced panel fastening (Item 16), plate-to-stud connections (Item 17), or top plate lap nailing at corners (Item 18) would look under the "Wall" heading and not find these items. This mislabeling could lead to missed o...

Suggested next step: Request that the designer correct the section header on Table R602.3(1) so that Items 16 through 21 are listed under the "Wall" category, consistent with the 2022 California Residential Code Table R602.3(1). The "Floor" section header should begin at Item 22.

RFI draft: Request that the designer correct the section header on Table R602.3(1) so that Items 16 through 21 are listed under the "Wall" category, consistent with the 2022 California Residential Code Table R602.3(1). The "Floor" section header should begin...

Summary: The grading plan indicates a Finished Floor (FF) elevation of 56.80 for the proposed building. However, adjacent proposed spot elevations near the building are specified as 57.18 and 56.85. Because the exterior grade is higher than the finished floor, surface water will drain directly toward the foundation rather than falling away from it. This contradicts the code requirement that site grading...

Why it matters: If constructed as shown, the building will be subject to continuous surface water intrusion and potential foundation flooding. Permitting authorities will reject the grading plan until it demonstrates proper site drainage away from the structure.

Suggested next step: Please revise the site grading or adjust the finished floor elevation so the exterior grade falls a minimum of 6 inches within the first 10 feet away from the foundation walls to prevent water intrusion.

RFI draft: Please revise the site grading or adjust the finished floor elevation so the exterior grade falls a minimum of 6 inches within the first 10 feet away from the foundation walls to prevent water intrusion.

Summary: The Wall Beam Plan on S01 (page 6) specifies 'SSW24X10' shear walls at two locations along grid line 1, each requiring a '36" WIDE X 24" DEEP X 60" LONG FOOTING CENTERED UNDER STRONWALL'. However, the details sheet SD2 (page 10) provides installation details exclusively for 'WSWH24' shear walls across three details (Details 3, 7, and 8). SSW24X10 and WSWH24 are different Simpson Strong-Wall pro...

Why it matters: This discrepancy creates significant uncertainty for procurement and construction. The contractor cannot determine which shear wall product to order (SSW24X10 or WSWH24), and the support condition differs substantially, a 36"x24"x60" concrete footing versus a steel wide flange beam. Since these ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify which shear wall product model is correct: SSW24X10 as shown on the Wall Beam Plan (S01) or WSWH24 as detailed on SD2. If WSWH24 is the intended product, please update the Wall Beam Plan to reflect the correct model and confirm the support condition (steel beam ...

RFI draft: Please clarify which shear wall product model is correct: SSW24X10 as shown on the Wall Beam Plan (S01) or WSWH24 as detailed on SD2. If WSWH24 is the intended product, please update the Wall Beam Plan to reflect the correct model and confirm the ...

Summary: The 'Wall Beam Plan' framing elevation on S02 specifies an 'HSS6X6X3/8" X 12" COLUMN' and a 'W8X15' steel beam. However, Perimeter Footing details 1 and 2 on SD2 (where Detail 1 explicitly directs to 'SEE SHEARWALL PLAN') specify a smaller 'HSS 3X3X3/8"' column and a '6X12' wood beam with CC066 hardware.

Why it matters: This conflict between heavy steel assemblies (HSS 6x6, W8x15 beam) and much lighter assemblies (HSS 3x3, 6x12 wood beam) fundamentally impacts structural load path calculations and material procurement. Incorrect installation based on mismatched details could result in rejected framing inspection...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct column and beam sizes for the perimeter framing. Should the assembly use the HSS 6x6x3/8 column and W8x15 beam as indicated on S02, or the HSS 3x3x3/8 column and 6x12 beam as indicated in Details 1 and 2 on SD2?

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct column and beam sizes for the perimeter framing. Should the assembly use the HSS 6x6x3/8 column and W8x15 beam as indicated on S02, or the HSS 3x3x3/8 column and 6x12 beam as indicated in Details 1 and 2 on SD2?

Summary: The foundation plan on S01 specifies the 4" concrete slab to be placed over 4" of clean drain rock. However, Perimeter Footing Detail 1 on SD2 explicitly calls for 4" of Aggregate Base directly under the slab. Furthermore, Slab Cross Section Detail 9 on SD2 introduces a different assembly entirely, requiring the slab to sit on 1" of moist sand and a 10 mil vapor barrier over 4" of clean drain r...

Why it matters: Clean drain rock and aggregate base are functionally different materials (free-draining vs. compacted dense base). Conflicting sub-base specifications will cause confusion during grading and preparation. Additionally, the omission of the vapor barrier (as implied by the foundation plan note and D...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct sub-base assembly for the concrete slab-on-grade. Verify whether the slab should be placed on 4" aggregate base (per Detail 1), 4" clean drain rock (per Foundation Plan), or the full assembly with a 10 mil vapor barrier and 1" sand (per Detail 9).

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct sub-base assembly for the concrete slab-on-grade. Verify whether the slab should be placed on 4" aggregate base (per Detail 1), 4" clean drain rock (per Foundation Plan), or the full assembly with a 10 mil vapor barrier ...

Summary: Section A-A on the Grading Plan (C2) labels the proposed structure as 'PROPOSED CARPORT,' while the Architectural Cover Sheet (A1.0) identifies it as 'PROPOSED GARAGE' in both the site plan and the Building Data Summary, which describes the scope as 'NEW 643 SQ. .FT. DETACHED GARAGE WITH STORAGE.' A carport is an open-sided shelter, whereas a garage is an enclosed structure. These are fundament...

Why it matters: This conflict affects building code compliance, construction type classification (V-B as noted on A1.0), occupancy classification (R-3/U), structural design (wall requirements, lateral systems), fire-resistance ratings, and permitting. A carport typically does not require walls, while a garage re...

Suggested next step: Request clarification from the design team on whether the proposed structure is a carport or a garage. If it is a garage as indicated on A1.0, the grading plan Section A-A on sheet C2 should be revised to reflect the correct structure type. Confirm the applicable code requirem...

RFI draft: Request clarification from the design team on whether the proposed structure is a carport or a garage. If it is a garage as indicated on A1.0, the grading plan Section A-A on sheet C2 should be revised to reflect the correct structure type. Confir...

Summary: The architectural Front Elevation on sheet A2.1 explicitly notes 'NO OVERHANG THIS SIDE' on one side of the building. However, the structural Roof Framing Plan on sheet S01 specifies a '1'-6" TYP. O.H.' (typical overhang) without noting any exception for the no-overhang condition. The structural framing plan does not acknowledge or accommodate the zero-overhang side called for by the architect,...

Why it matters: This conflict affects truss fabrication and roof framing layout. If the truss manufacturer follows the structural plan's typical 1'-6" overhang on all sides, the resulting framing will contradict the architectural intent. Conversely, if the builder follows the architectural elevation and eliminat...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the roof overhang condition on the side noted 'NO OVERHANG THIS SIDE' on the A2.1 Front Elevation. The structural Roof Framing Plan on S01 shows a typical 1'-6" overhang with no exception noted. Please confirm which condition governs and provide an updated struc...

RFI draft: Please clarify the roof overhang condition on the side noted 'NO OVERHANG THIS SIDE' on the A2.1 Front Elevation. The structural Roof Framing Plan on S01 shows a typical 1'-6" overhang with no exception noted. Please confirm which condition govern...

Summary: The "SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE:" on S02 (Page 7) specifies "UPPER STORY SILL NAILING - 16D'S @4" O.C." for all shear wall types. Conversely, the "FASTENING SCHEDULE" on SD1.0 (Page 9, Item 16) specifies a spacing of "16" o.c. face nail" for fastening the bottom plate to joists or blocking at braced wall panels.

Why it matters: If a contractor applies the general 16" o.c. fastener spacing from the prescriptive table on SD1.0 instead of the engineered 4" o.c. spacing specifically designated on S02, the shear walls may lack the required connection capacity to effectively transfer lateral forces to the floor diaphragm belo...

Suggested next step: Please confirm that the more stringent "16D'S @4" O.C." upper story sill nailing specified in the Shear Wall Schedule on S02 supersedes the "16" o.c." bottom plate spacing prescribed in the Fastening Schedule (Item 16) on SD1.0. Consider adding a general note indicating that s...

RFI draft: Please confirm that the more stringent "16D'S @4" O.C." upper story sill nailing specified in the Shear Wall Schedule on S02 supersedes the "16" o.c." bottom plate spacing prescribed in the Fastening Schedule (Item 16) on SD1.0. Consider adding a ...