Bay Area Plan Review: 899 Issues Found
An anonymized plan review in the San Francisco Bay Area uncovered 899 coordination and code issues across architectural, structural, MEP, fire protection, and civil—before permit.
Enterprise & volume pricing
Key findings
Conflicting FHSZ F2 roof covering cap sheet specification (72" vs 22#)
Fire Protection
One sheet specifies mineral-surfaced cap sheet as "72\"" and another as "22#" for the same FHSZ roof requirement, creating a direct conflict in the roof assembly for WUI compliance.
Projection fire-separation threshold and eave/rake protection conflict
Fire Protection
Sheets conflict on projection fire-separation triggers (2'-0" to 3'-0" vs 2'-0") and required eave/rake detailing (metal wire mesh vs fireblocking; different vent restrictions).
FHSZ keynotes conflict between sheets (cap sheet width, soffit vent size)
Fire Protection
Conflicting keynotes on different sheets for cap sheet width and soffit vent sizing in FHSZ condition.
Inconsistent Design References for Alternative Option 2 (Open vs Enclosed)
Architectural
Design references for Alternative Option 2 conflict (open vs enclosed condition), creating ambiguity for permit and construction.
Contradictory Material Specifications for Guardrail Posts and Pickets
Architectural
Guardrail posts and pickets are specified with contradictory materials across architectural and structural sheets.
Conflict in Water Heater Location and Ventilation Strategy
Mechanical
Water heater location and required ventilation strategy conflict between mechanical and architectural drawings.
Missing Subpanel Feeder in Main Panel Schedule
Electrical
Main panel schedule does not show a feeder for a subpanel that is indicated on the one-line or plan.
Stair Tread Depth Below Minimum Requirement
Architectural
Stair tread depth is shown or specified below the minimum code requirement for the occupancy and use.
Structural connection detail missing or inconsistent with plan
Structural
A structural connection called out on the plan is missing from the detail set or does not match the plan condition.
Plumbing fixture count or type conflicts with architectural plan
Plumbing
Plumbing schedule or riser diagram shows fixture count or type that does not match the architectural floor plan.
Issue categories
More example findings
Conflicting FHSZ F2 roof covering cap sheet specification (72" vs 22#)Fire ProtectionCritical
Summary: One sheet specifies mineral-surfaced cap sheet as "72\"" and another as "22#" for the same FHSZ roof requirement, creating a direct conflict in the roof assembly for WUI compliance.
Why it matters: Affects code compliance and product selection. Building to the wrong requirement may fail plan-check or inspection for wildfire/fire performance.
Suggested next step: Confirm the correct cap sheet requirement (72# mineral-surfaced, 22# felt/cap, or other) and revise both sheets to match.
RFI draft: Please clarify the correct FHSZ F2 roof covering cap sheet specification and align all sheets.
Projection fire-separation threshold and eave/rake protection conflictFire ProtectionCritical
Summary: Sheets conflict on projection fire-separation triggers (2'-0" to 3'-0" vs 2'-0") and required eave/rake detailing (metal wire mesh vs fireblocking; different vent restrictions).
Why it matters: Differing triggers and construction requirements can lead to inconsistent plan-check interpretation and incorrect construction.
Suggested next step: Confirm which trigger and which eave/rake construction and vent restrictions govern; update all sheets to match.
RFI draft: Please clarify projection fire-separation condition and required eave/rake details; align notes across sheets.
FHSZ keynotes conflict between sheets (cap sheet width, soffit vent size)Fire ProtectionCritical
Summary: Conflicting keynotes on different sheets for cap sheet width and soffit vent sizing in FHSZ condition.
Why it matters: Contractors may order wrong materials or install non-compliant assemblies.
Suggested next step: Reconcile FHSZ keynotes across all sheets and issue a single set of governing notes.
RFI draft: Please clarify FHSZ cap sheet and soffit vent requirements and align keynotes.
Inconsistent Design References for Alternative Option 2 (Open vs Enclosed)ArchitecturalCritical
Summary: Design references for Alternative Option 2 conflict (open vs enclosed condition), creating ambiguity for permit and construction.
Why it matters: Plan check and construction may proceed under the wrong option, leading to rework or compliance issues.
Suggested next step: Confirm the governing option and update all references consistently.
RFI draft: Please clarify which Alternative Option 2 (open or enclosed) governs and align all references.
Contradictory Material Specifications for Guardrail Posts and PicketsArchitecturalCritical
Summary: Guardrail posts and pickets are specified with contradictory materials across architectural and structural sheets.
Why it matters: Wrong material selection can affect structural capacity, durability, and code compliance.
Suggested next step: Confirm guardrail material specification and align architectural and structural documents.
RFI draft: Please clarify guardrail post and picket material specification; align arch and structural sheets.
Conflict in Water Heater Location and Ventilation StrategyMechanicalCritical
Summary: Water heater location and required ventilation strategy conflict between mechanical and architectural drawings.
Why it matters: Incorrect location or venting can create code and safety issues and require costly relocation.
Suggested next step: Confirm water heater location and vent strategy; coordinate mechanical and architectural sheets.
RFI draft: Please clarify water heater location and ventilation requirements across disciplines.
Missing Subpanel Feeder in Main Panel ScheduleElectricalCritical
Summary: Main panel schedule does not show a feeder for a subpanel that is indicated on the one-line or plan.
Why it matters: Missing feeder creates incomplete electrical design and can delay permit or cause field changes.
Suggested next step: Add subpanel feeder to main panel schedule and verify one-line and panel schedules match.
RFI draft: Please add missing subpanel feeder to main panel schedule and confirm coordination.
Stair Tread Depth Below Minimum RequirementArchitecturalCritical
Summary: Stair tread depth is shown or specified below the minimum code requirement for the occupancy and use.
Why it matters: Non-compliant tread depth can fail plan check and create trip/fall risk.
Suggested next step: Revise stair design to meet minimum tread depth and confirm all stair details are code-compliant.
RFI draft: Please clarify and correct stair tread depth to meet code minimum.
Structural connection detail missing or inconsistent with planStructuralHigh
Summary: A structural connection called out on the plan is missing from the detail set or does not match the plan condition.
Why it matters: Contractors cannot build correctly without consistent connection details; risk of RFIs and rework.
Suggested next step: Provide or revise the connection detail to match the plan and ensure consistency across sheets.
RFI draft: Please provide or align structural connection detail with plan.
Plumbing fixture count or type conflicts with architectural planPlumbingHigh
Summary: Plumbing schedule or riser diagram shows fixture count or type that does not match the architectural floor plan.
Why it matters: Mismatch can affect code compliance (e.g., fixture counts) and cause coordination rework.
Suggested next step: Reconcile fixture count and type between plumbing and architectural documents.
RFI draft: Please align plumbing fixture count and type with architectural plans.
HVAC equipment clearance or access conflict with structureMechanicalHigh
Summary: Mechanical equipment shown does not have adequate clearance or access per code or maintenance requirements, or conflicts with structural elements.
Why it matters: Inadequate access can fail inspection and prevent proper maintenance.
Suggested next step: Verify equipment clearances and access; coordinate mechanical and structural as needed.
RFI draft: Please confirm HVAC equipment clearance and access; coordinate with structural.
Fire-rated assembly designation inconsistent across sheetsFire ProtectionHigh
Summary: Same wall or floor-ceiling assembly is designated with different fire ratings or UL design numbers on different sheets.
Why it matters: Inconsistent ratings can fail plan check and create life-safety compliance risk.
Suggested next step: Confirm the correct fire-rated assembly and align all references and details.
RFI draft: Please clarify fire-rated assembly designation and align across sheets.
Site grading or retaining wall conflict with building exitCivilCritical
Summary: Grading plan or retaining wall layout would obstruct or conflict with building exit doors or egress path shown on architectural plans.
Why it matters: Blocked egress can fail code and create life-safety risk.
Suggested next step: Reconcile site grading and retaining walls with building exits and egress; provide areaway or redesign as needed.
RFI draft: Please align site grading and retaining walls with building egress; clarify design intent.
Energy compliance note conflicts with envelope or mechanical designArchitecturalMedium
Summary: Energy compliance note or checklist conflicts with shown envelope details or mechanical system design.
Why it matters: Inconsistency can delay energy review or cause post-permit corrections.
Suggested next step: Reconcile energy compliance documentation with envelope and mechanical design.
RFI draft: Please align energy compliance notes with envelope and mechanical design.
Roof slope or drainage conflict between architectural and structuralStructuralHigh
Summary: Roof slope or drainage direction shown on architectural roof plan conflicts with structural framing or deck layout.
Why it matters: Conflict can cause ponding, drainage issues, or truss/framing errors.
Suggested next step: Confirm intended roof slope and drainage; align architectural and structural documents.
RFI draft: Please clarify roof slope and drainage; align arch and structural sheets.
This is an anonymized example. Findings shown are excerpts for illustration. Actual project details have been modified to protect client confidentiality.
Related case studies
Similar AI plan review results by project type and discipline. Browse all case studies
Want this on your next set?
Start with the first $100 covered. See cited issues in hours, no call required.
- Median 87 issues per project
- 5+ issues or full refund
- Results in hours
5+ issues or full refund · No demo required