364 Issues Found in New Church Construction Documents
Undersized septic systems, Title 24 non-compliance, accessibility violations, egress deficiencies, and hundreds of cross-document contradictions—all caught before permit submission.
35 critical issues including undersized septic tank (30% below code requirements), Title 24 mandatory measures failure, and egress capacity violations for 633-person occupancy— any one of which would have caused permit rejection.
The Project
A new ~11,000 SF religious facility with Assembly Group A-3 occupancy, designed for up to 633 occupants. The project included a sanctuary, social hall, classrooms, kitchen, and support spaces—with on-site septic and well systems. InspectMind reviewed architectural, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, civil, and fire protection drawings against the full specification package.
Critical Findings
2,000 gallon tank specified when calculations show 2,840-3,088 gallons required per CPC Appendix H. Would cause permit rejection and potential system failure.
Certificate of Compliance explicitly states "DOES NOT COMPLY" for mandatory measures—a direct contradiction to project specification requirements for code compliance.
Project Directory shows Gas utility as "N/A", yet plumbing details show gas inlet and piping for water heater. Fundamental conflict about utility availability.
Code compliance block states 2 exits for occupancy under 500, but specifications show 633 occupants requiring 3 exits. Life safety violation.
Men's restroom floor plan shows 4 toilet stalls and 3 lavatories, but elevations show different fixtures entirely—fundamental coordination failure between views.
Different addresses (2700 vs 7200 Central Ave), APNs (034 vs 035), lot areas (5.07 vs 2.68 AC), and building areas (11,000 vs 10,795 SF) between cover sheet and site analysis.
Circuit 17 shows 2.46 kW load (20.5 amps at 120V) on a 20-amp breaker—NEC overcurrent protection violation.
Equipment schedule shows 23,800 and 47,000 under "kBtu/h" columns—implying millions of BTU/h for small commercial AC units. Values likely entered in Btu/h instead of kBtu/h.
Additional High-Priority Findings
Drawing permits 8.5 lbs exterior door force; specification requires maximum 5 lbs—70% over limit.
Drawing shows 6" maximum toe clearance; specification requires 17" minimum—values are inverted.
Detail specifies 0.25-0.5% slope; UPC requires minimum ~2% for building sewers.
Title 24 shows 11,100 SF conditioned; architectural shows 10,795 SF total building—mathematical impossibility.
Van accessible stall shows 16'-0"; specification requires 18'-0" minimum—2 feet short.
Title 24 form classifies exhaust fans as serving "Dwelling Units" in an A-3 church occupancy—triggers incorrect ventilation standards.
Drawing notes allow aluminum conductors; specifications explicitly prohibit aluminum wiring.
Beam schedule specifies Douglas Fir #2 for 6x members; specification requires #1 grade for beams 6x and greater.
Issue Categories
Plumbing & Septic
Undersized septic tank, slope violations, trap requirements, conflicting pipe sizes
Mechanical & Title 24
Non-compliance certificates, equipment misclassification, capacity errors
Electrical
Circuit overloads, panel schedule conflicts, code version contradictions
Accessibility / ADA
Door forces, toe clearances, grab bar dimensions, signage conflicts
Fire Life Safety
Egress capacity, exit requirements, panic hardware contradictions
Structural
Lumber grades, fire blocking spacing, mixed framing materials
Architectural
Plan vs. elevation conflicts, finish schedule contradictions, room numbering
Civil & Site
Property data conflicts, grading issues, erosion control contradictions
Issue Severity Breakdown
Value Delivered
"I've been in this business for 50 years and this will change the way we do business. This will save me so much time and money. I'm liking what I am seeing. It has some fruitful beginnings. Good work!"
Thomas J. Owens, P.E., P.L.S., Assoc. AIA
Owens Design Consultants, Oakdale, CA
Why Assembly Occupancies Require Rigorous QA/QC
Religious facilities, event centers, and other Group A (Assembly) occupancies face heightened scrutiny from plan checkers and inspectors. With occupant loads often exceeding 500 people, issues with egress, fire protection, accessibility, and utility capacity become life-safety matters.
This project demonstrated how even experienced design teams can have coordination gaps across an 11,000 SF facility with multiple disciplines. From fundamental utility conflicts (gas piping shown with no gas service) to mathematical impossibilities (conditioned area exceeding building area), automated review catches what manual review often misses.