Plan Review: 52 Issues Found

Summary: 80 index entries | 41 perfect matches | 35 mismatched | 4 missing Mismatched (35): A0: Expected: SITE PLAN, PROJECT SUMMARY & VICINITY MAP. (A0) | Actual: SITE PLAN (A0)(p1) A0.3: Expected: CALIFORNIA GREEN CODE (A0.3) | Actual: CAL GRN CODE (A0.3)(p4) A0.4: Expected: CALIFORNIA GREEN CODE (A0.4) | Actual: CAL GRN CODE (A0.4)(p5) A0.5: Expected: CALIFORNIA GREEN C...

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: 4 missing, 35 mismatched out of 80 sheets

Summary: Sheet P-3.1 (Domestic First Floor Plan) calls out a '(1) HR FIRE RATED WALL ICC-ESR 1338. PER DETAIL 13/A4.0' at the wall separating the kitchen/office area from the industrial space. However, Detail 13 on sheet A4.0 is titled 'SECTION AT MECHANICAL PLATFORM' and depicts an RTU roof curb framing detail with plywood deck, 4x6 joists, Simpson hardware, and galvanized sheet metal cap. It contains ...

Why it matters: This mismatch means there is no detail on A4.0 that provides the required construction methodology for the 1-hour fire-rated wall separating the occupied spaces from the industrial space. Without a correct fire-rated wall detail, the contractor has no guidance on the proper assembly, and the buil...

Suggested next step: Request clarification on the correct detail reference for the 1-hour fire-rated wall (ICC-ESR 1338). Either Detail 13/A4.0 should be revised to show the fire-rated wall assembly, a new detail should be added for the fire-rated wall with the correct cross-reference on P-3.1, or...

RFI draft: Request clarification on the correct detail reference for the 1-hour fire-rated wall (ICC-ESR 1338). Either Detail 13/A4.0 should be revised to show the fire-rated wall assembly, a new detail should be added for the fire-rated wall with the correc...

Summary: Sheet A1.1 (First Floor Plan) includes a note on the 1-hour fire-rated wall that reads '(1) HR FIRE RATED WALL ICC-ESR 1338. PER DERATL 13/A4.0', directing the contractor to Detail 13 on sheet A4.0 for the wall assembly construction. However, Detail 13 on sheet A4.0 is titled 'SECTION AT MECHANICAL PLATFORM' and depicts an RTU roof-mounted mechanical platform with curbs, plywood decking, joists...

Why it matters: This cross-reference error means there is no construction detail provided for the 1-hour fire-rated wall separating the office area from the industrial space. Without a proper wall assembly detail, the contractor cannot verify the correct stud size, gypsum board layers, insulation requirements, a...

Suggested next step: Request the architect to provide the correct 1-hour fire-rated wall assembly detail referenced as 13/A4.0 on sheet A1.1. Clarify whether the detail number on A1.1 is incorrect and should reference a different detail, or whether the detail is missing from sheet A4.0 and needs t...

RFI draft: Request the architect to provide the correct 1-hour fire-rated wall assembly detail referenced as 13/A4.0 on sheet A1.1. Clarify whether the detail number on A1.1 is incorrect and should reference a different detail, or whether the detail is missi...

Summary: Sheet P-2.1 (Waste and Vent First Floor Plan) calls out a '(1) HR FIRE RATED WALL ICC-ESR 1338 PER DETAIL 13/A4.0' at the wall separating the kitchen area from the industrial space. However, on sheet A4.0 (General Detail), Detail/Section 13 is titled 'SECTION AT MECHANICAL PLATFORM' and shows a roof-mounted RTU platform with curbs, plywood deck, joists, and Simpson hardware, it has no relation...

Why it matters: This cross-reference mismatch means the contractor and inspector have no architectural detail to follow for the construction of the 1-hour fire-rated wall with ICC-ESR 1338 evaluation. This wall is critical for fire separation between the kitchen/office area and the industrial space. Without a va...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct detail reference for the 1-hour fire-rated wall (ICC-ESR 1338) noted on sheet P-2.1. Detail 13 on sheet A4.0 is a 'Section at Mechanical Platform' and does not depict a fire-rated wall assembly. Please provide the correct detail number/sheet referenc...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct detail reference for the 1-hour fire-rated wall (ICC-ESR 1338) noted on sheet P-2.1. Detail 13 on sheet A4.0 is a 'Section at Mechanical Platform' and does not depict a fire-rated wall assembly. Please provide the correc...

Summary: The Electrical Power First Floor Plan directs the connection of indoor units (e.g., IDU-4) to circuit A-7,9. The Panel 'A' Schedule sizes the breaker for circuit 7,9 at 20 Amps (20/2). However, the Indoor Unit Schedule specifies a Maximum Overcurrent Protection (MOCP) of 15 Amps for these indoor units.

Why it matters: Connecting equipment with a 15A MOCP rating to a 20A circuit breaker is a code violation. The overcurrent protection provided by the panel exceeds the manufacturer's maximum allowed rating, which creates a severe safety and fire hazard in the event of an electrical fault.

Suggested next step: Please confirm if the circuit breakers for the Indoor Units (circuits 7,9 and 6,8) should be reduced from 20A to 15A to comply with the 15A MOCP specified in the Indoor Unit Schedule.

RFI draft: Please confirm if the circuit breakers for the Indoor Units (circuits 7,9 and 6,8) should be reduced from 20A to 15A to comply with the 15A MOCP specified in the Indoor Unit Schedule.

Summary: The Indoor Unit Schedule on E-1.2 assigns IDU-1 as model MMK-UB0151HP-UL with MCA 0.38A, while the Indoor Unit Schedule on M-1.1 assigns IDU-1 as model MMK-UB0091HP-UL (0.75 ton, qty 4) with MCA 0.23A. Similarly, E-1.2 assigns IDU-2 as model MMK-UB0091HP-UL, while M-1.1 assigns IDU-2 as model MMK-UB0121HP-UL. Additionally, E-1.2 uses 9 individual unit tags (IDU-1 through IDU-9) whereas M-1.1 us...

Why it matters: This tag-to-model mismatch will cause confusion during procurement and installation. A contractor referencing E-1.2 would install a 1.25-ton unit (MMK-UB0151HP-UL) for IDU-1, while a contractor referencing M-1.1 would install a 0.75-ton unit (MMK-UB0091HP-UL). Incorrect unit selection would resul...

Suggested next step: Request the design team to reconcile the indoor unit tag numbering system and model assignments between the Electrical Mechanical List on E-1.2 and the Mechanical Indoor Unit Schedule on M-1.1. Clarify whether individual tags (IDU-1 through IDU-9) or type-based tags (IDU-1 thr...

RFI draft: Request the design team to reconcile the indoor unit tag numbering system and model assignments between the Electrical Mechanical List on E-1.2 and the Mechanical Indoor Unit Schedule on M-1.1. Clarify whether individual tags (IDU-1 through IDU-9)...

Summary: The 'LEGEND NOTES' detail an internal contradiction: the Branch Circuit symbol is graphically depicted with three vertical hash marks (indicating 3 conductors), yet the accompanying text explicitly limits it to '(2)#12 AWG'. Furthermore, this 2-conductor limit conflicts with emergency egress lighting requirements. The schedule specifies 'L1 - EM' fixtures have a battery backup, and the floor pl...

Why it matters: If the electrical contractor follows the written text ('2#12 AWG' typical for all), the emergency battery fixtures will lack the required unswitched hot leg. This will cause the emergency batteries to lose charging power and drain entirely every time the occupancy sensor turns off the lights, res...

Suggested next step: Please resolve the discrepancy in the Legend Notes between the three graphical hash marks and the '(2)#12 AWG' text. Additionally, verify that typical branch circuit wiring should be updated to require a third conductor (unswitched hot leg) for all circuits serving L1-EM batte...

RFI draft: Please resolve the discrepancy in the Legend Notes between the three graphical hash marks and the '(2)#12 AWG' text. Additionally, verify that typical branch circuit wiring should be updated to require a third conductor (unswitched hot leg) for al...

Summary: Detail 4 on sheet S-4.2 (HEADER/LOW BEAM TO POST) includes a note directing the user to 'OTHERWISE USE TYPICAL HEADER DETAIL 1/S4.1.' However, Detail 1 on sheet S-4.1 is 'TYP. DRAG CONNECTION AT SHEAR WALLS', not the typical header detail. The actual TYPICAL HEADER detail and HEADER SCHEDULE are contained within Detail 2 on S-4.1 ('TYP. STUD WALL FRAMING ELEVATION & HEADER SCHEDULE'). The cross...

Why it matters: During construction, a framer encountering a header or low beam condition not specifically called out on the plan would follow the note on Detail 4/S-4.2 and look up Detail 1/S-4.1, only to find a drag strap connection detail with no header sizing information. This could lead to delays while the ...

Suggested next step: Please confirm that the note on Detail 4/S-4.2 should reference Detail 2/S-4.1 (TYP. STUD WALL FRAMING ELEVATION & HEADER SCHEDULE) instead of Detail 1/S-4.1 (TYP. DRAG CONNECTION AT SHEAR WALLS) for the typical header detail. Please issue a correction to the cross-reference i...

RFI draft: Please confirm that the note on Detail 4/S-4.2 should reference Detail 2/S-4.1 (TYP. STUD WALL FRAMING ELEVATION & HEADER SCHEDULE) instead of Detail 1/S-4.1 (TYP. DRAG CONNECTION AT SHEAR WALLS) for the typical header detail. Please issue a corre...

Summary: The framing plan on S-1.1 specifies the ledger at the existing concrete wall as 'LEDGER 3X10 DF-L #2', indicating a 3-inch nominal width, 10-inch deep member. However, Detail 4/S3.0, which is directly referenced from the plan at this same location (section callout 4/S3.0 pointing to the left exterior wall), shows a '4x LEDGER', indicating a 4-inch nominal width member. The nominal width discrep...

Why it matters: The ledger width directly affects the structural capacity of the connection to the existing concrete wall, including the bearing area for the threaded rod epoxy anchors specified in Detail 4/S3.0, the joist hanger seating, and the overall load transfer mechanism. A 3x member (2.5" actual) versus ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct ledger size at the existing concrete wall connection. The framing plan S-1.1 specifies a 3X10 DF-L #2 ledger, while Detail 4/S3.0 specifies a 4x ledger. Which size is correct? If the 4x ledger is intended, please also confirm the depth dimension and ...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct ledger size at the existing concrete wall connection. The framing plan S-1.1 specifies a 3X10 DF-L #2 ledger, while Detail 4/S3.0 specifies a 4x ledger. Which size is correct? If the 4x ledger is intended, please also co...

Summary: The "PERFORATED SHEAR WALL ELEVATION" on sheet S-4.0 explicitly references detail "2/S4.1" for complete header details. However, there are two direct contradictions between these drawings regarding the framing around the openings. First, S-4.0 calls for an "ST 22 STRAP" (and "ST22 STRAP") at the window and door openings, whereas the referenced S-4.1 detail requires an "MST 22" strap. Second, S-...

Why it matters: ST22 and MST 22 are different models of strap connectors with distinct material gauges, load capacities, and fastener requirements. Furthermore, specifying solid 4x blocking in one drawing versus built-up 2-2x blocking in the cross-referenced detail creates a framing inconsistency. The seam in a ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct strap connector model (ST 22 vs. MST 22) and the required framing member type (solid 4x vs. built-up 2-2x) to be installed at openings within perforated shear walls.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct strap connector model (ST 22 vs. MST 22) and the required framing member type (solid 4x vs. built-up 2-2x) to be installed at openings within perforated shear walls.

Summary: The Plan Legend on sheet A1.1 specifies new interior walls with 1/2" gypsum board: 'NEW WALL (2X4 STUDS@ 16" O.C. WITH (1) LAYER OF 1/2" GYP. BOARD @ BOTH SIDES.' However, the building sections on sheet A3.0 consistently call out 5/8" gypsum board at walls and ceilings: '5/8" THK. GYP. BD. TYP. @ WALLS & CEILING.' This annotation appears in both Section #1 (pointing to the Rest Room walls on th...

Why it matters: This discrepancy affects material procurement, cost estimation, and potentially code compliance. If 5/8" Type X gypsum board is required for fire-resistance or sound-transmission ratings, installing 1/2" board per the floor plan legend would not meet building code requirements. The sections apply...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct gypsum board thickness for new interior (non-fire-rated) walls. The Plan Legend on A1.1 specifies 1/2" GYP. BOARD while Sections #1 and #2 on A3.0 specify 5/8" THK. GYP. BD. TYP. @ WALLS & CEILING. Which specification governs? Please revise the confl...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct gypsum board thickness for new interior (non-fire-rated) walls. The Plan Legend on A1.1 specifies 1/2" GYP. BOARD while Sections #1 and #2 on A3.0 specify 5/8" THK. GYP. BD. TYP. @ WALLS & CEILING. Which specification go...

Summary: The Outdoor Unit Schedule on sheet E-1.2 lists ODU-1 on PNL 'A'-7,9 and ODU-2 on PNL 'A'-6,8. However, the Panel Schedule on the same sheet assigns ODU-1 to circuits 13,15 (40/2 breaker, 3806 VA) and ODU-2 to circuits 34,36 (40/2 breaker, 3869 VA). Furthermore, the Panel Schedule assigns circuits 7,9 to the 1ST FLOOR IDU (20/2 breaker) and circuits 6,8 to the 2ND FLOOR IDU (20/2 breaker). The E...

Why it matters: If the contractor follows the Outdoor Unit Schedule circuit references during rough-in, the ODUs (MCA 36.60A and 37.20A, requiring 40A breakers and #6 AWG conductors per the schedule) could be mistakenly connected to the 20A IDU circuits wired with #10 AWG conductors. This would result in immedia...

Suggested next step: Request the electrical engineer of record to verify and correct the Outdoor Unit Schedule circuit references on E-1.2. Confirm that ODU-1 should reference PNL 'A'-13,15 and ODU-2 should reference PNL 'A'-34,36 as indicated in the Panel Schedule. Issue a revised Mechanical List...

RFI draft: Request the electrical engineer of record to verify and correct the Outdoor Unit Schedule circuit references on E-1.2. Confirm that ODU-1 should reference PNL 'A'-13,15 and ODU-2 should reference PNL 'A'-34,36 as indicated in the Panel Schedule. I...

Summary: Section #1 on sheet A3.0 dimensions the upper-level Conference Room ceiling height at 8'-1 5/8", while Section #2 on the same sheet dimensions the same Conference Room ceiling height at 8'-9". Both sections cut through the Conference Room as indicated by section callouts 1/A3.0 and 2/A3.0 on the First Floor Plan (A1.1). The approximately 7-3/8" discrepancy between the two section views of the s...

Why it matters: This significant height discrepancy affects wall framing, MEP rough-in coordination, ceiling grid layout, and potentially the overall building height and roof framing connections. Contractors framing the second-floor Conference Room cannot determine the correct ceiling height from the current dra...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct ceiling height for the upper-level Conference Room. Section #1 on A3.0 indicates 8'-1 5/8" while Section #2 on A3.0 indicates 8'-9". Please confirm the intended dimension and revise the affected section drawing.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct ceiling height for the upper-level Conference Room. Section #1 on A3.0 indicates 8'-1 5/8" while Section #2 on A3.0 indicates 8'-9". Please confirm the intended dimension and revise the affected section drawing.

Summary: Foundation Note 8.e on Sheet S-1.0 specifies a plate washer thickness of '.229"' for anchor bolts in shear wall sill plates. In contrast, the Plate Washer Schedule on Sheet S-4.0 specifies a thickness of '5/16' (0.3125") for both 1/2" and 5/8" bolt sizes.

Why it matters: A discrepancy in required plate washer thickness can lead to incorrect hardware being ordered and installed. Since a 5/16" washer is thicker than a standard .229" washer, providing .229" washers based on S-1.0 may result in a failed inspection if the structural schedule on S-4.0 is strictly enfor...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the required plate washer thickness for shear wall sill plate anchor bolts. Should it be .229" as noted on S-1.0, or 5/16" as specified in the S-4.0 Plate Washer Schedule?

RFI draft: Please confirm the required plate washer thickness for shear wall sill plate anchor bolts. Should it be .229" as noted on S-1.0, or 5/16" as specified in the S-4.0 Plate Washer Schedule?

Summary: Two separate details on S-4.1 provide directly conflicting instructions on where holes can be drilled through floor joists (such as the 'FJ- 2x10 DF#2' shown on S-1.1). Detail 3 requires holes to be near the center of the span, explicitly stating 'NO PENETRATION ALLOWED AT EA. SIDE' for a distance of 'L/ 4 ±' from the supports. In direct contradiction, Detail 7 explicitly prohibits holes in the...

Why it matters: This creates an impossible paradox for MEP trades attempting to route utilities through the structural joists. Following Detail 3 forces holes into the middle of the span (violating Detail 7), while following Detail 7 forces holes into the outer sections near the supports (violating Detail 3). Th...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the permissible zones for drilling holes in floor joists. Detail 3 restricts penetrations in the outer L/4 spans, while Detail 7 restricts holes in the middle 1/3 span. Which detail governs the allowable boring locations for sawn lumber joists?

RFI draft: Please clarify the permissible zones for drilling holes in floor joists. Detail 3 restricts penetrations in the outer L/4 spans, while Detail 7 restricts holes in the middle 1/3 span. Which detail governs the allowable boring locations for sawn lu...