Riverside CA Plan Review: 256 Issues Found

Summary: The electrical specifications state that the fire alarm system is required but 'is not shown on these drawings.' CBC 907.1.1 requires construction documents for fire alarm systems to indicate the location, nature, and extent of the work and show in detail that it will conform to code. A statement that the fire alarm is not shown conflicts with...

Why it matters: If fire alarm design/layout is not included in the construction documents submitted for permit (or otherwise provided as an approved deferred submittal package), the AHJ can reject or delay permit/inspection approval, and construction coordination (devices, power, pathways, notification zoning) can be impacted, causing schedule delays and...

Suggested next step: Provide code-compliant fire alarm construction documents that indicate the location, nature, and extent of the fire alarm system work (or confirm the fire alarm will be submitted as a deferred submittal acceptable to the fire code official), and identify where these documents are included in the permit set for review/approval.

RFI draft: Provide code-compliant fire alarm construction documents that indicate the location, nature, and extent of the fire alarm system work (or confirm the fire alarm will be submitted as a deferred submittal acceptable to the fire code official), and identify where these documents are included in the...

Summary: The sheet’s plumbing notes explicitly require solder containing 50% lead for above-ground copper water piping serving the domestic hot/cold water system. The 2022 CPC limits lead in solder/flux used for water for human consumption to not more than 0.2%, and prohibits solder/flux exceeding 0.2% lead in potable water piping systems. Therefore the...

Why it matters: If followed in construction, this would create a noncompliant potable water system and is likely to be rejected at inspection, requiring removal/replacement of affected joints and materials and potentially impacting occupant health and project schedule/cost.

Suggested next step: Revise the plumbing notes/specification to require lead-free solder and flux complying with CPC lead limits (≤0.2% lead) for all domestic potable water piping joints. Confirm whether any nonpotable systems exist where different requirements are intended, and clearly differentiate them on the drawings/specifications.

RFI draft: Revise the plumbing notes/specification to require lead-free solder and flux complying with CPC lead limits (≤0.2% lead) for all domestic potable water piping joints. Confirm whether any nonpotable systems exist where different requirements are intended, and clearly differentiate them on the...

Summary: The structural detail titled 'TYP. CONDUITS & PIPES EMBEDDED IN CONCRETE' states that 'CONDUITS, PIPES AND SLEEVES ... MAY BE PERMITTED TO BE EMBEDDED IN CONCRETE' and includes additional requirements for 'CONDUITS AND PIPES EMBEDDED WITHIN A SLAB' and 'PIPING AND CONDUIT'. Because these notes do not explicitly exclude plumbing-system piping,...

Why it matters: If the project team interprets this structural note as authorizing plumbing piping cast-in-place within slabs, it may be rejected at inspection and/or require significant demolition and rework to relocate/modify the installation to a code-compliant method (e.g., sleeved/isolated or routed in an approved location).

Suggested next step: Revise/clarify the 'TYP. CONDUITS & PIPES EMBEDDED IN CONCRETE' detail notes to explicitly exclude plumbing-system piping from being directly embedded in concrete (or provide a clearly code-compliant plumbing routing/penetration/sleeving detail). Confirm how any plumbing piping at slabs will comply with CPC 312.2.

RFI draft: Revise/clarify the 'TYP. CONDUITS & PIPES EMBEDDED IN CONCRETE' detail notes to explicitly exclude plumbing-system piping from being directly embedded in concrete (or provide a clearly code-compliant plumbing routing/penetration/sleeving detail). Confirm how any plumbing piping at slabs will...

Summary: The railing detail explicitly limits the railing height to “42” MAX.” This contradicts CRC guard height requirements, which require required guards to be not less than 42 inches in height. A maximum height note does not establish the required minimum and directly conflicts with the code minimum for guards at open-sided walking surfaces.

Why it matters: If constructed per the drawing note, the guard could be installed below the code-required minimum height, leading to failed inspection and rework (replacement/extension of guard system and potential re-fabrication of posts/rails).

Suggested next step: Revise the railing/guard height requirement to comply with CRC R312.1.2 (e.g., change “42” MAX.” to “42” MIN.” where this railing serves as a guard) and confirm the architectural guard height dimension on the applicable plans/details.

RFI draft: Revise the railing/guard height requirement to comply with CRC R312.1.2 (e.g., change “42” MAX.” to “42” MIN.” where this railing serves as a guard) and confirm the architectural guard height dimension on the applicable plans/details.

Summary: On sheet A21.1, Key Note 10 calls out a concrete column size of 10'x18' and explicitly references structural Detail 1 on SD1 for that column. However, on sheet SD1 Detail 1 (Typical Gravity Column Reinforcing Layout), the column is labeled 12'x18', which contradicts the A21.1 column dimension for the same referenced structural detail.

Why it matters: This affects column formwork size, reinforcement layout, connections, and any associated guards/clearances. If built per the wrong size, it can cause structural nonconformance and coordination issues with adjacent parking layout and architectural elements.

Suggested next step: Confirm the required concrete column size at the open garages (10'x18' vs 12'x18'). If SD1 Detail 1 is intended to govern, revise A21.1 Key Note 10 accordingly; if 10'x18' is correct, revise SD1 Detail 1 and any associated reinforcing/footing assumptions tied to the column size.

RFI draft: Confirm the required concrete column size at the open garages (10'x18' vs 12'x18'). If SD1 Detail 1 is intended to govern, revise A21.1 Key Note 10 accordingly; if 10'x18' is correct, revise SD1 Detail 1 and any associated reinforcing/footing assumptions tied to the column size.

Summary: On sheet A21.2, Wall Type G ('MECH SHAFT') is described as 'SHAFT WALL 2X4 WOOD STUD' and references '20/D9'. On sheet D9, the referenced shaft wall detail (20) includes a UL assembly stating 'FRAMING TYPE: STEEL STUD (NONLOAD-BEARING)'. This is a direct conflict in the required framing material for the shaft wall assembly tied to the...

Why it matters: Shaft wall framing type drives the tested fire-rated assembly compliance, detailing at floor/roof intersections, and coordination with MEP penetrations. A wood-stud vs steel-stud mismatch can result in a noncompliant rated enclosure and construction rework.

Suggested next step: Confirm whether Shaft Wall 'G' is intended to be wood stud (2x4) or a UL steel-stud shaftwall system (UL U415). Update Wall Type G description on A21.2 and/or revise D9 Detail 20 so the specified framing type is consistent and code-compliant.

RFI draft: Confirm whether Shaft Wall 'G' is intended to be wood stud (2x4) or a UL steel-stud shaftwall system (UL U415). Update Wall Type G description on A21.2 and/or revise D9 Detail 20 so the specified framing type is consistent and code-compliant.

Summary: Sheet A22.4 includes a revision note stating the garage doors are deleted, indicating open parking bays. However, sheet A22.1 still specifies an “AUTOMATIC METAL OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR” (16'-0' x 6'-8'), which conflicts with deleting garage doors.

Why it matters: This affects the building envelope and garage frontage (open bays vs. operable doors), and can impact security, ventilation approach, electrical needs for operators, detailing at openings, and permitting/entitlement compliance. Construction cannot proceed without a single coordinated direction.

Suggested next step: Confirm whether garage doors are to be provided or deleted. If deleted, remove/revise the overhead door keynote/specification and coordinate the garage plan to show open bays only; if doors are required, revise A22.4 elevation notes and show door types/locations consistently.

RFI draft: Confirm whether garage doors are to be provided or deleted. If deleted, remove/revise the overhead door keynote/specification and coordinate the garage plan to show open bays only; if doors are required, revise A22.4 elevation notes and show door types/locations consistently.

Summary: On sheet A01.6 (Fire Access Site Plan), the fire service is called out as an 8-inch line. However, the Private Underground Fire Main sheet includes a scope statement calling for a new 4-inch waterline to the proposed building. The same Underground Fire Main sheet also lists quantities for installing an 8-inch waterline, creating additional...

Why it matters: Fire main sizing affects hydraulic calculations, available flow, material takeoffs, trenching, fittings/thrust blocks, detector assemblies, and agency approval. A mismatch between 4-inch and 8-inch could result in a noncompliant system or major change orders during construction.

Suggested next step: Confirm the required and permitted private fire main size for this project (4' vs 8'), and identify which note(s)/schedule(s) govern. Revise the Underground Fire Main scope and construction notes (and any related details/calcs) to match the approved design.

RFI draft: Confirm the required and permitted private fire main size for this project (4' vs 8'), and identify which note(s)/schedule(s) govern. Revise the Underground Fire Main scope and construction notes (and any related details/calcs) to match the approved design.

Summary: Architectural Key Notes call for CMU garage walls, but the structural foundation notes state bearing/shear walls are framed with 2x6 studs at 16' O.C. These are conflicting wall systems for the same garage scope and will drive different foundations, shear detailing, and connections.

Why it matters: If the garages are CMU, the structural holdown/shearwall approach implied by stud-framed shear walls may be inapplicable, and the foundation/reinforcing and lateral design may require redesign. If the garages are stud-framed, the architectural CMU wall callout and related details/finishes may need revision. Proceeding without resolution risks...

Suggested next step: Confirm the intended garage wall system (CMU vs wood stud framing). Provide revised, coordinated architectural wall notes/details and structural foundation/lateral design (including holdowns, reinforcing, and connection details) consistent with the selected system.

RFI draft: Confirm the intended garage wall system (CMU vs wood stud framing). Provide revised, coordinated architectural wall notes/details and structural foundation/lateral design (including holdowns, reinforcing, and connection details) consistent with the selected system.

Summary: The accessible parking matrix explicitly lists parking facility type GD with 16 total stalls but shows zero accessible spaces provided for that facility type. CBC 11A requires at least one accessible space for each type of parking facility serving covered multifamily dwellings, even when the overall accessible count exceeds 2%.

Why it matters: This will likely be rejected at plan check and can force late redesign of stall layouts/striping and potentially grading/accessible route revisions for the GD facility, causing schedule delays and added construction cost.

Suggested next step: Revise the parking matrix and site plan to provide at least one accessible space (van or standard, as applicable) in parking facility type GD, or clarify (with code justification) why GD is not a parking facility that is required to provide accessible parking under CBC 11A-1109A.

RFI draft: Revise the parking matrix and site plan to provide at least one accessible space (van or standard, as applicable) in parking facility type GD, or clarify (with code justification) why GD is not a parking facility that is required to provide accessible parking under CBC 11A-1109A.

Summary: The drawing’s accessibility diagram states that doorways may be designed to a minimum clear opening of 31-3/4 inches. CBC Ch. 11A for covered multifamily dwelling units requires swinging doors to provide a net clear opening width of not less than 32 inches when measured at 90 degrees. The noted 31-3/4 inch minimum is less than the code minimum.

Why it matters: If doors are constructed per the noted 31-3/4 inch minimum, the unit will not comply with Chapter 11A door clearance requirements, which can trigger plan check corrections and may require door/frame changes (cost and schedule impacts).

Suggested next step: Revise the accessibility diagram notes to require a minimum 32-inch net clear opening for swinging doors (measured at 90 degrees), and confirm door/frame sizes throughout the unit achieve this minimum clear opening.

RFI draft: Revise the accessibility diagram notes to require a minimum 32-inch net clear opening for swinging doors (measured at 90 degrees), and confirm door/frame sizes throughout the unit achieve this minimum clear opening.

Summary: The accessibility diagram labeled “CIRCULATION PATH” shows a “32” min” width callout for the circulation path. CBC 1130A.2 states that the accessible route into and throughout covered multifamily dwelling units shall be at least 36 inches wide. If the design intent is that any portion of the dwelling unit accessible route is permitted to be 32...

Why it matters: If any hallway/circulation segment along the dwelling unit accessible route is built to a 32-inch minimum (per the diagram callout), the accessible route may not comply with CBC 1130A.2, potentially requiring reconfiguration of walls/doors and causing rework and delays.

Suggested next step: Clarify whether the “32” min” circulation path callout is intended to apply to the accessible route. If it applies, revise the diagram/notes/details so the accessible route into and throughout the dwelling unit is shown and specified as 36 inches minimum clear width per CBC 1130A.2, and confirm all circulation segments meet this minimum.

RFI draft: Clarify whether the “32” min” circulation path callout is intended to apply to the accessible route. If it applies, revise the diagram/notes/details so the accessible route into and throughout the dwelling unit is shown and specified as 36 inches minimum clear width per CBC 1130A.2, and confirm...

Summary: The construction type is explicitly listed as 'VB/ TYPE 1' for multiple buildings in the fire access site plan schedule. CBC requires buildings to be classified in one of the five construction types; the schedule’s combined/ambiguous designation is not a single construction type classification as required for code analysis and fire-resistance...

Why it matters: An incorrect or ambiguous construction type classification can invalidate the project’s height/area and fire-resistance assumptions used for permitting and can drive major downstream redesign (e.g., required ratings, allowable stories/area, and fire protection scope). This typically triggers plan-check correction cycles and can delay permit...

Suggested next step: Revise the schedule to provide a single, code-recognized CBC construction type for each building (Type I, II, III, IV, or V, with the appropriate A/B subtype as applicable), and remove the combined 'VB/ TYPE 1' designation.

RFI draft: Revise the schedule to provide a single, code-recognized CBC construction type for each building (Type I, II, III, IV, or V, with the appropriate A/B subtype as applicable), and remove the combined 'VB/ TYPE 1' designation.

Summary: The sheet’s accessibility notes for exterior stairways state that stair nosings are permitted to project up to 1-1/2 inch past the face of the riser below. However, 2022 CBC Chapter 11A limits exterior stair nosing projection to a maximum of 1-1/4 inch. The drawing note is therefore incorrect and, if followed, could produce noncompliant stair...

Why it matters: If the contractor builds per the noted 1-1/2 inch maximum, the exterior stairs could fail accessibility inspection, requiring demolition/rework of treads/nosings and causing schedule delays and added cost.

Suggested next step: Revise the ACCESSIBLE NOTES for exterior stairways to match CBC 1115A.4 (nosing projection max 1-1/4 inch) and confirm all stair details/specifications use the corrected maximum nosing projection.

RFI draft: Revise the ACCESSIBLE NOTES for exterior stairways to match CBC 1115A.4 (nosing projection max 1-1/4 inch) and confirm all stair details/specifications use the corrected maximum nosing projection.

Summary: The pool enclosure gate notes require the self-latching device release mechanism to be located not less than 60 inches from the bottom of the gate. This sets the release mechanism above the maximum allowable high reach for operable parts on an accessible route (48 inches max).

Why it matters: If constructed as noted, the pool gate will not comply with CBC accessibility reach range requirements for operable parts. This can trigger plan check comments, accessibility corrections, and potential reconstruction of installed gate hardware.

Suggested next step: Revise the pool gate/self-latching release mechanism requirement and provide an accessible-compliant gate hardware mounting height within the 11B reach ranges (high reach 48 inches max) while maintaining required pool safety/latching performance.

RFI draft: Revise the pool gate/self-latching release mechanism requirement and provide an accessible-compliant gate hardware mounting height within the 11B reach ranges (high reach 48 inches max) while maintaining required pool safety/latching performance.