Plan Review: 27 Issues Found

Summary: 25 index entries | 0 perfect matches | 0 mismatched | 25 missing Missing (25) — listed in drawing index but not found in the document: SHT: - SHT 1.) SITE PLAN - NEW - SHT 2.) SURVEY - SHT 3.) MAIN FLOOR PLAN - EXISTING - SHT 4.) MAIN FLOOR PLAN - NEW - SHT 5.) MAIN FLOOR ELECTRICAL - SHT 6.) FOUNDATION - EXISTING - SHT 7.) FOUNDATION / NEW ADU - SHT 8....

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: 25 missing, 0 mismatched out of 25 sheets

Summary: The Second (Main) Floor Framing Plan on Sheet 17 includes a detail callout '1/20' in the crawl space area pointing to the girder sistering condition, specifying 'NEW 2 - 2 X10 W/ EX. 4 X 6'. However, Detail 1 on Sheet 20, which is the referenced detail, specifies 'NEW 2" X 8" SISTERED TO EXISTING GIRDER'. The new sistering lumber depth differs: the plan calls for 2x10 members while the detail s...

Why it matters: A 2x10 has significantly greater section modulus and moment of inertia than a 2x8, meaning the structural capacity of the sistered girder assembly would be materially different depending on which dimension is followed. If the 2x10 was sized based on engineering calculations to meet load and defle...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct lumber size for the new members to be sistered to the existing girder in the crawl space area referenced by Detail 1/20. The framing plan on Sheet 17 specifies '2 - 2 X 10' while Detail 1 on Sheet 20 specifies 'NEW 2" X 8"'. Which dimension governs, ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct lumber size for the new members to be sistered to the existing girder in the crawl space area referenced by Detail 1/20. The framing plan on Sheet 17 specifies '2 - 2 X 10' while Detail 1 on Sheet 20 specifies 'NEW 2" X ...

Summary: The Foundation Plan (Sheet 16) depicts the central and eastern portions of the building layout as a concrete slab-on-grade, explicitly noting "EXISTING FOOTINGS TO BE TIED TO NEW EXISTING SLAB" and showing a stippled hatch pattern typical for concrete. Conversely, the Second (Main) Floor Framing Plan (Sheet 17) shows a raised wood floor system for these exact same areas, detailing wood framing ...

Why it matters: Specifying both a concrete slab foundation and a raised wood floor system with girders and joists for the same level creates a fundamental structural contradiction. This will severely impact estimating, material procurement, and construction, as the two systems require entirely different site pre...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended floor system for the central and eastern living areas. Is the floor meant to be a concrete slab-on-grade as shown on the Foundation Plan, or a raised wood floor with joists and girders as detailed on the Floor Framing Plan? Please update the corresp...

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended floor system for the central and eastern living areas. Is the floor meant to be a concrete slab-on-grade as shown on the Foundation Plan, or a raised wood floor with joists and girders as detailed on the Floor Framing P...

Summary: Section B on Sheet 15 shows the "ENTRY" room located on an upper floor level constructed with "wood joists" over a crawlspace or sloped grade. In contrast, the Foundation Plan on Sheet 16 depicts the "ENTRY" room as resting directly on a continuous "concrete slab" at the same level as the "STORAGE" and "KITCHEN / GREAT ROOM" areas.

Why it matters: This is a fundamental discrepancy in the building's floor system and elevation design. If the foundation is poured according to the Foundation Plan (slab-on-grade for the Entry), it will be impossible to construct the split-level wood-framed Entry shown in the Architectural Sections, severely imp...

Suggested next step: Please coordinate the Foundation Plan with Architectural Section B regarding the 'ENTRY' area. Clarify whether the Entry is intended to be a slab-on-grade foundation or a suspended wood-joist floor over a crawlspace, and update the conflicting drawing accordingly.

RFI draft: Please coordinate the Foundation Plan with Architectural Section B regarding the 'ENTRY' area. Clarify whether the Entry is intended to be a slab-on-grade foundation or a suspended wood-joist floor over a crawlspace, and update the conflicting dra...

Summary: The Architectural Floor Plan (Sheet 6) designates the lower level space adjacent to the Garage as a "LIVING AREA" and a "UTILITY" room on a slab (noted as "top of slab 15\" below grade"). In direct contradiction, the Structural Second Floor Framing Plan (Sheet 17) labels this exact same supporting footprint beneath the main floor framing as a "CRAWL SPACE" and specifies an exposed post and pier...

Why it matters: A structural crawl space utilizing a post and pier foundation is completely incompatible with an architectural layout that calls for a finished, open living area and a slab-on-grade utility room. This major discrepancy will halt foundation work, as the contractor cannot pour a slab and frame a cr...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended foundation and space use for the lower level adjacent to the Garage. Is it meant to be a slab-on-grade "LIVING AREA" and "UTILITY" room (as shown on Architectural Sheet 6) or an unfinished "CRAWL SPACE" with a post and pier foundation (as detailed o...

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended foundation and space use for the lower level adjacent to the Garage. Is it meant to be a slab-on-grade "LIVING AREA" and "UTILITY" room (as shown on Architectural Sheet 6) or an unfinished "CRAWL SPACE" with a post and ...

Summary: The 'APPLICABLE CODES' block in the general notes explicitly lists the '2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE'. This directly contradicts the project requirement to comply with the 2025 California Green Building Standards Code.

Why it matters: Referencing an outdated code edition on the construction drawings can lead the contractor to follow superseded regulatory requirements. This will result in failed inspections, plan check rejections, and costly delays while the design and construction are updated to meet the 2025 standards.

Suggested next step: Please update the 'APPLICABLE CODES' list to reference the 2025 California Green Building Standards Code and verify that all project details comply with the 2025 requirements.

RFI draft: Please update the 'APPLICABLE CODES' list to reference the 2025 California Green Building Standards Code and verify that all project details comply with the 2025 requirements.

Summary: The Site Plan on Sheet 1 labels the drainage pit as '4' X 12' DRAINAGE PIT - SEE DETAIL 4/20', explicitly referencing Detail 4 on Sheet 20. However, Detail 4 on Sheet 20 ('WATER BIORETENTION DETAIL') dimensions the pit as '4' X 20'' in its plan view. This is a direct dimensional contradiction: the site plan specifies a 12-foot-long pit while the detail drawing specifies a 20-foot-long pit.

Why it matters: This 8-foot discrepancy in pit length directly affects excavation quantities, material procurement (drain rock, filter fabric, perforated pipe), site grading, and the bioretention capacity of the drainage system. If built to the wrong dimension, the stormwater management system may be undersized ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct length of the drainage/bioretention pit. The Site Plan (Sheet 1) indicates 4' x 12' while Detail 4 on Sheet 20 shows 4' x 20'. Please confirm the correct dimension and issue revised drawings to ensure consistency between the site plan and the detail.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct length of the drainage/bioretention pit. The Site Plan (Sheet 1) indicates 4' x 12' while Detail 4 on Sheet 20 shows 4' x 20'. Please confirm the correct dimension and issue revised drawings to ensure consistency between...

Summary: The Shear Wall Schedule notes require all anchor bolts to have 3"x3"x1/4" square washers, and the general Foundation Notes reiterate the use of 3"x3"x1/4" square washers. However, the 'INTERIOR FOOTING' detail contradicts this by explicitly specifying 2"x2"x1/4" washers, despite also directing the reader to see the Shear Wall Schedule.

Why it matters: Using 2"x2"x1/4" washers on interior footings that are part of a shear wall system conflicts with standard building code (IBC/CBC) requirements, which mandate minimum 3"x3"x0.229" plate washers for shear wall anchor bolts. This discrepancy will lead to incorrect material procurement and failed fr...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required anchor bolt washer size for the interior footings. Should the 2"x2"x1/4" washers shown in Detail 1 be revised to 3"x3"x1/4" square washers to align with the Shear Wall Schedule and Foundation Note 6?

RFI draft: Please clarify the required anchor bolt washer size for the interior footings. Should the 2"x2"x1/4" washers shown in Detail 1 be revised to 3"x3"x1/4" square washers to align with the Shear Wall Schedule and Foundation Note 6?

Summary: The Foundation Plan (Sheet 16) indicates that the exterior deck attaches to a concrete foundation wall, explicitly calling out a 'BOND BEAM' and a 'STEP FOOTING TO RECEIVE DECK'. The lateral load connections for this deck are noted as 'DTT2' on the plan, which Detail C/20 confirms are 'SET INTO CONCRETE'. However, the deck section referenced for this area, Detail A/20, contradicts the plan by i...

Why it matters: Attaching a deck ledger to a concrete foundation requires entirely different structural hardware (e.g., concrete expansion or epoxy anchors) and waterproofing details compared to attaching to a wood-framed stud wall (which utilizes lag screws/through-bolts and different flashing). Proceeding with...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct substrate and detail for the deck ledger attachment. Should the deck ledger attach to the concrete bond beam/step footing with 'DTT2' anchors set into concrete (as implied by the Foundation Plan and Detail C/20), or to a wood stud wall (as shown in D...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct substrate and detail for the deck ledger attachment. Should the deck ledger attach to the concrete bond beam/step footing with 'DTT2' anchors set into concrete (as implied by the Foundation Plan and Detail C/20), or to a...

Summary: The Floor Plan explicitly notes that the UTILITY room has a 'top of slab 15" below grade'. However, the provided primary foundation section (Detail 1: Slab Edge Detail) only illustrates a standard monolithic slab-on-grade edge that steps 6" above the exterior grade. No stem wall or building retaining detail is provided to accommodate a slab dropping 15" below exterior grade.

Why it matters: Applying a standard 6" above-grade slab edge detail to a room where the slab is actually 15" below grade would result in the exterior wood framing and sheathing being buried underground. This violates code requirements for minimum wood-to-earth clearance and will cause severe moisture intrusion a...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the foundation perimeter condition for the Utility room. Provide a dedicated architectural/structural detail showing the necessary stem wall and waterproofing required to support the exterior wood framing at least 6" above exterior grade while the interior slab ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the foundation perimeter condition for the Utility room. Provide a dedicated architectural/structural detail showing the necessary stem wall and waterproofing required to support the exterior wood framing at least 6" above exterior ...

Summary: Detail C on Sheet 15 explicitly directs the builder to Detail 1 on Sheet 19 for slab conditions using the note "WHERE SLAB OCCURS - SEE DETAIL 1/19". Detail 1/19 defines a highly reinforced "10\" CONCRETE SLAB" with top and bottom mats specified as "2 ROWS OF # 5 BARS 12\" O.C. HORIZONTALLY, EACH WAY". However, Detail C illustrates the structural connection to this slab using only a single laye...

Why it matters: Structurally tying a heavy double-mat 10" structural slab into a retaining wall foundation typically requires top and bottom dowels matching the slab's reinforcement to ensure proper moment and shear transfer. The single tie bar shown in Detail C contradicts the heavy double-mat reinforcement spe...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the slab-to-retaining wall connection at Detail C. Should the 'b' BARS be installed in two rows to match the double mat of #5 bars specified for the 10" slab in Detail 1/19, or does the slab reinforcement transition to a single mat at the wall?

RFI draft: Please clarify the slab-to-retaining wall connection at Detail C. Should the 'b' BARS be installed in two rows to match the double mat of #5 bars specified for the 10" slab in Detail 1/19, or does the slab reinforcement transition to a single mat ...

Summary: There are three different requirements for rebar lap splices across the structural set. Detail C states to lap bars "AS NEEDED PER SECTION 1912.2 &.3". However, the foundation details on Sheet 19 provide contradictory hard-coded rules: Foundation Note 5 explicitly dictates "SPLICE LENGTHS: #4 BARS = 41\", #5 BARS = 51\"." Conversely, Detail 13 mandates that "ALL REBAR SPLICES 40 DIAMETERS OF TH...

Why it matters: Using the "40 diameters" rule from Detail 13 yields a 20" lap splice for a #4 bar (0.5" dia) and a 25" lap splice for a #5 bar (0.625" dia). These lengths are less than half of the 41" and 51" lengths required by Foundation Note 5. This massive discrepancy creates confusion for the steel tier. In...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required rebar lap splice lengths. Should all splices follow the 40 bar diameter rule from Detail 13, or the absolute lengths of 41" (#4) and 51" (#5) specified in Foundation Note 5?

RFI draft: Please clarify the required rebar lap splice lengths. Should all splices follow the 40 bar diameter rule from Detail 13, or the absolute lengths of 41" (#4) and 51" (#5) specified in Foundation Note 5?

Summary: Sheet 17 (Second Floor Framing Plan) details a large exterior framed structure with dimensions '14'', '25' AVE', and '17'', supported by '6 X 6 POST W/ CCQ CAP AND CBQ BASE'. A note explicitly states 'SEE SITE PLAN ON SHEET 1.' pointing to this area. However, Sheet 1 (Site Plan) does not show any corresponding structure with these dimensions or post locations. It only indicates features such as...

Why it matters: The explicit cross-reference fails because the target drawing lacks the referenced geometry. This discrepancy will cause confusion during foundation and framing layout, potentially leading to unpermitted structure sizes, incorrect setbacks, or clashes with property lines and easements.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the footprint of the exterior structure detailed with 14', 17', and 25' AVE dimensions on the Framing Plan. Update the Site Plan to accurately reflect this structure, or revise the Framing Plan to match the intended site layout.

RFI draft: Please clarify the footprint of the exterior structure detailed with 14', 17', and 25' AVE dimensions on the Framing Plan. Update the Site Plan to accurately reflect this structure, or revise the Framing Plan to match the intended site layout.

Summary: The Foundation Plan (Sheet 16) places callouts for Detail C/15 alongside instructions for rebar to be "EPOXIED AND DOWELED 6\" INTO EXISTING FOUNDATION". However, Detail C/15 on Sheet 15 details a completely new "RETAINING WALL W/ SLAB" with a new keyway footing, providing no information on how to attach or modify an existing foundation.

Why it matters: Referencing a detail for a completely new foundation wall at a location designated as an existing wall creates a conflict for the builder. It is unclear if the intent is to pour a new retaining wall adjacent to the existing foundation, or if a different detail specifically showing the doweling/ep...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the use of Detail C/15 along the existing foundation lines. If a new slab or wall is to be doweled into the existing foundation as noted on the plan, please provide the applicable connection detail, as Detail C/15 shows entirely new foundation construction.

RFI draft: Please clarify the use of Detail C/15 along the existing foundation lines. If a new slab or wall is to be doweled into the existing foundation as noted on the plan, please provide the applicable connection detail, as Detail C/15 shows entirely new...

Summary: The Floor Plan General Notes on Sheet 7 specify bathroom exhaust fans as 'CAPABLE OF 50 CFM FOR INTERMITTENT OR 20 CFM FOR CONTINUOUS' (cubic feet per minute). However, the Electrical Plan legend and fixture annotations on Sheet 8 consistently label the bathroom ceiling/exhaust fans as '50 CFS MIN' (cubic feet per second). CFM and CFS are fundamentally different units — 50 CFS equals 3,000 CFM,...

Why it matters: If taken at face value, the electrical plan's specification of 50 CFS (3,000 CFM) for a bathroom fan is an absurd and physically impractical requirement, while the floor plan's 50 CFM is a standard residential bathroom exhaust rate. This unit discrepancy could confuse the installer or inspector, ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct airflow unit for bathroom exhaust/ceiling fans. Sheet 7 Floor Plan General Notes specify '50 CFM' while Sheet 8 Electrical Plan legend and annotations specify '50 CFS MIN'. Confirm whether the electrical plan should read '50 CFM MIN' to match the arc...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct airflow unit for bathroom exhaust/ceiling fans. Sheet 7 Floor Plan General Notes specify '50 CFM' while Sheet 8 Electrical Plan legend and annotations specify '50 CFS MIN'. Confirm whether the electrical plan should read...