Plan Review: 174 Issues Found

Summary: 78 index entries | 51 perfect matches | 16 mismatched | 11 missing Mismatched (16): G015: Expected: ACCESSIBILITY CHECKLIST A (G015) | Actual: ACCESSIBILITY CHECKLIST (G015)(p15) A301: Expected: PROPOSED BUILDING SECTIONS (A301) | Actual: PROPOSED BUILDING SECTION (A301)(p22) A402: Expected: ENLARGED PLAN AND INTERIOR ELEVATION (A402) | Actual: ENLARGED PLAN & INTERI...

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: 11 missing, 16 mismatched out of 78 sheets

Summary: The Overall Proposed Roof Plan comprehensively depicts the primary roof drainage system, showing 6" Ø roof drains (keynote 6) at multiple locations across the roof perimeter and interior, 8" Ø drain pipes with 1/4" slope (keynote 7), and roof slope arrows indicating drainage patterns throughout. The complete keynote list (items 1 through 12) covers all roof elements including primary drains, dr...

Why it matters: This deficiency is compounded by the large structural bay sizes (64'-0" x 60'-0" typical) and the low 2% roof structural slope (equivalent to 0.24 in/ft), which falls below the 1/4 in. per foot threshold in ASCE 7-16 Section 8.4 that defines susceptible bays. Without a secondary drainage system, ...

Suggested next step: Confirm whether a secondary (overflow) roof drainage system has been designed for this project. If secondary drains or scuppers are included in the plumbing design, provide their locations on the roof plan and confirm they are designed per ASCE 7-16 Section 8.2 for the 15-min ...

RFI draft: Confirm whether a secondary (overflow) roof drainage system has been designed for this project. If secondary drains or scuppers are included in the plumbing design, provide their locations on the roof plan and confirm they are designed per ASCE 7-...

Summary: The drawing general notes specify a water closet clearance consisting of 18" from the centerline to the wall on one side, and a 32" clear space from the wall on the other side. This older code standard allows for a total compartment width of less than 60". Furthermore, the drawing states a "minimum 48\" clear space" in front. The 2022 California Building Code explicitly requires a minimum 60" w...

Why it matters: Constructing water closet compartments with less than 60" of clear width violates strict ADA/CBC spatial requirements. This is a severe accessibility barrier that typically requires costly teardowns, plumbing relocation, and reconstruction to pass final inspection.

Suggested next step: Please update the general notes for single accommodation sanitary facilities to require a minimum 60" wide by 56" deep clearance around water closets, and a minimum 60" wide by 48" deep maneuvering space in front, per CBC 11B-604.3.1.

RFI draft: Please update the general notes for single accommodation sanitary facilities to require a minimum 60" wide by 56" deep clearance around water closets, and a minimum 60" wide by 48" deep maneuvering space in front, per CBC 11B-604.3.1.

Summary: The Plumbing Code Analysis on the drawing calculates the warehouse occupant load using a factor of 1 occupant per 4,000 square feet, which results in only 44 occupants for a 172,949 sq. ft. space. However, CBC Section 2902.1 requires that the number of occupants for plumbing fixture calculations be determined by the Building Code, and CBC Table 1004.5 specifies a maximum floor area allowance of...

Why it matters: Applying the correct CBC factor of 1:500 yields an occupant load of 346, rather than 44. By incorrectly using the 1:4000 factor, the calculation severely underestimates the building's occupant load, leading to a massive shortfall in the required number of plumbing fixtures. This will result in pl...

Suggested next step: Please revise the plumbing code analysis to calculate the warehouse occupant load using the required factor of 1 occupant per 500 gross square feet per CBC Table 1004.5. Update the required number of plumbing fixtures based on the corrected occupant load and adjust the archite...

RFI draft: Please revise the plumbing code analysis to calculate the warehouse occupant load using the required factor of 1 occupant per 500 gross square feet per CBC Table 1004.5. Update the required number of plumbing fixtures based on the corrected occupa...

Summary: The enlarged restroom plan indicates a width of 4'-10" (58 inches) for the accessible toilet compartment in Male R.R. 107. This violates the building code, which requires a minimum clearance of 60 inches measured perpendicular from the side wall for water closets and toilet compartments.

Why it matters: Providing less than the required 60-inch width restricts the maneuvering space necessary for wheelchair users to safely access and transfer to the water closet, failing accessibility requirements and preventing permit approval or sign-off.

Suggested next step: Please revise the floor plan to provide a minimum width of 60 inches for the accessible toilet compartment in Male R.R. 107, in accordance with CBC 11B-604.3.1.

RFI draft: Please revise the floor plan to provide a minimum width of 60 inches for the accessible toilet compartment in Male R.R. 107, in accordance with CBC 11B-604.3.1.

Summary: Detail 15 '3-HOUR FIRE WALL@HSS COLUMN' labels the structural column as '10"X10" x 5/16" STRUCTURAL COLUMN PER STRUCTURE', but the fire design description for GA File No. CM 3801 explicitly states the assembly is for a 'TS8 x 8 x.0250 tube steel column'. The GA assembly was tested and listed for an 8"x8" tube steel column, not a 10"x10" column. Fire-rated assemblies are only valid when construc...

Why it matters: This mismatch means the 3-hour fire rating for the column enclosure is unverified. During plan review or field inspection, the building official would reject this assembly because the listed configuration does not match the installed condition. This would require redesign with a GA file or UL des...

Suggested next step: Request the architect/fire protection consultant to provide a fire-rated column enclosure assembly (GA File or UL Design) that has been tested and listed for a 10"x10" x 5/16" (or larger) HSS column to achieve the required 3-hour fire-resistance rating. Update Detail 15 accord...

RFI draft: Request the architect/fire protection consultant to provide a fire-rated column enclosure assembly (GA File or UL Design) that has been tested and listed for a 10"x10" x 5/16" (or larger) HSS column to achieve the required 3-hour fire-resistance r...

Summary: The proposed elevations show new exterior man doors (Keynote 2) situated on a raised platform/base band, which vertical dimension strings indicate is 4'-0" (48 inches) above the grade/finished floor (0"). While some of these doors on the North Elevation are properly detailed with stairs (Keynote 6) and guards (Keynote 7), the two westernmost doors on the North Elevation and the door on the East...

Why it matters: Egress doors opening to a 4-foot drop without stairs or landings sever the required means of egress path and pose a severe life-safety fall hazard. If uncorrected, this will lead to failed egress and safety inspections, and mandate the addition of structural stairs, landings, and handrails during...

Suggested next step: Please revise the North and East Building Elevations to include compliant stairs, landings, and guardrails for all elevated exterior (N) DOOR locations, matching the egress detailing provided for the other man doors on the North Elevation.

RFI draft: Please revise the North and East Building Elevations to include compliant stairs, landings, and guardrails for all elevated exterior (N) DOOR locations, matching the egress detailing provided for the other man doors on the North Elevation.

Summary: Detail 11 (ROOF DRAIN & OVERFLOW SCUPPER DETAIL) specifies '30" SQ. MIN. 2.5 LB. LEAD SET ON FIN. ROOFING CEMENT, PRIME TOP SURFACE BEFORE STRIPPING' for the roof drain flashing. Per Section 1102.3.1, where lead flashing material is used for roof drain connections, it shall be not less than 4 pounds per square foot. The specified 2.5 lb/ft² lead is significantly below the code-mandated 4 lb/ft²...

Why it matters: Using underweight lead flashing at the roof drain penetration will fail plumbing code inspection and will need to be replaced during construction. This is a material specification error that affects waterproofing integrity at a critical drainage point. If constructed as detailed, the thinner lead...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the lead flashing weight for the roof drain in Detail 11. The drawing specifies 2.5 lb lead, but Section 1102.3.1 of the 2022 California Plumbing Code requires lead flashing at roof drains to be not less than 4 lb/ft². Please revise the detail to specify 4 lb le...

RFI draft: Please confirm the lead flashing weight for the roof drain in Detail 11. The drawing specifies 2.5 lb lead, but Section 1102.3.1 of the 2022 California Plumbing Code requires lead flashing at roof drains to be not less than 4 lb/ft². Please revise...

Summary: Detail 7 ('EXHAUST FAN PLATFORM DETAIL') specifies supporting the platform framing using a '4x8 WITH SIMPSON "HWU" HANGER AT EACH END TO JOIST'. The receiving joist is labeled 'BAR JOIST', which is a steel truss component. An HWU hanger is a standard face-mount connection hardware designed to be nailed into a wood header. It cannot be nailed directly into a steel bar joist. NDS 11.2.3 requires ...

Why it matters: The platform framing cannot be attached to the steel bar joists using wood-to-wood hangers. This will cause construction delays as the contractor must seek an alternative connection method (such as using weldable hangers or adding bolted wood nailers to the side of the steel joists) to safely sup...

Suggested next step: Please provide an approved detail for connecting the wood 4x8 members to the steel bar joists. Can a weldable hanger be used, or should a wood nailer be attached to the steel joist first to receive the HWU hanger?

RFI draft: Please provide an approved detail for connecting the wood 4x8 members to the steel bar joists. Can a weldable hanger be used, or should a wood nailer be attached to the steel joist first to receive the HWU hanger?

Summary: Sheet G012 Keynote 6 states the existing fire wall is to be demolished and replaced with a new 2-HR fire wall. However, Sheet A101 Keynote 6 identifies the same new fire wall as a 3-HR fire wall. Both keynotes use the same keynote number (6) and refer to the same demising wall that divides the building into Area 1 and Area 2. This is a direct contradiction in the fire-resistance rating of the r...

Why it matters: The fire-resistance rating of this wall is critical for code compliance, life safety, and occupant protection. A 2-HR fire wall and a 3-HR fire wall have substantially different construction requirements (thickness, materials, detailing). The A101 floor plan also specifies 3-HR roll-up doors at o...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required fire-resistance rating for the new fire wall replacing the existing fire wall (Keynote 6). Sheet G012 specifies a 2-HR fire wall while Sheet A101 specifies a 3-HR fire wall. Please confirm the correct rating and update all affected sheets, details (...

RFI draft: Please clarify the required fire-resistance rating for the new fire wall replacing the existing fire wall (Keynote 6). Sheet G012 specifies a 2-HR fire wall while Sheet A101 specifies a 3-HR fire wall. Please confirm the correct rating and update ...

Summary: Sheet A105 Keynote 4 describes the fire-rated wall condition at the roof as '3-HR FIRE RATED WALL STOPS UNDERNEATH ROOF SHEATHING PER 706.6.4.' However, on sheet A504, both Detail 18 (3-HR Fire Rated Wall at HSS Column) and Detail 28 (3-HR Fire Rated Wall Connection to the Roof)—which are the very details referenced by callouts 18/A504 and 28/A504 on the roof plan—contain annotations that read ...

Why it matters: This is a critical fire- and life-safety conflict. The fire rating of the wall at the roof sheathing termination directly affects the required assembly construction, materials, and code compliance per CBC Section 706.6.4. A 3-HR fire wall requires significantly more robust assemblies (additional ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the required fire rating for the fire wall that stops underneath the roof sheathing per CBC 706.6.4. Sheet A105 Keynote 4 specifies a '3-HR FIRE RATED WALL,' while Details 18/A504 and 28/A504 annotate this condition as a '2-HR FIRE WALL.' Please confirm the corr...

RFI draft: Please clarify the required fire rating for the fire wall that stops underneath the roof sheathing per CBC 706.6.4. Sheet A105 Keynote 4 specifies a '3-HR FIRE RATED WALL,' while Details 18/A504 and 28/A504 annotate this condition as a '2-HR FIRE ...

Summary: Sheet S102 Roof Notes, Note 19, specifies warehouse rafters as '2x6 NO.1 @ 24" O.C.' for both 8'-0" and 10'-0" purlin spans. However, SD4 Detail 4 (Panelized Roof Detail) explicitly calls out warehouse rafters as 'D.F. #1 2x4 @ 24" O.C. TYP. RAFTERS U.N.O @ WAREHOUSE'. Both sheets specify 2x6 for the office area, so only the warehouse rafter size is in conflict. Additionally, SD4 Detail 11 (Sky...

Why it matters: A 2x4 rafter has significantly less bending capacity and stiffness than a 2x6 rafter. If the structure requires 2x6 members (as shown in the S102 schedule) but 2x4 members are installed per the SD4 detail, the roof diaphragm sub-purlins could be structurally inadequate under dead, live, and wind ...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer clarify the correct rafter size for the warehouse area. Specifically, should warehouse rafters be 2x6 NO.1 as shown in S102 Note 19, or 2x4 D.F. #1 as shown in SD4 Detail 4? Request that the conflicting sheet be revised to match the intended des...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer clarify the correct rafter size for the warehouse area. Specifically, should warehouse rafters be 2x6 NO.1 as shown in S102 Note 19, or 2x4 D.F. #1 as shown in SD4 Detail 4? Request that the conflicting sheet be rev...

Summary: Sheet SD3 references Detail 2/SD4 in at least two separate details: (1) the Corner Connection detail (Detail 9), Section A, which includes a callout bubble labeled '2/SD4' highlighting a specific connection assembly between a bent plate and an embed plate in a precast concrete wall panel; and (2) the Panel Reinforcement detail (Detail 1), which directs the reader to 'STEEL LEDGER SEE 1 / SD4 2 ...

Why it matters: The steel ledger connection and the corner connection embed plate assembly are essential structural elements for precast concrete tilt-up wall panel construction. Without Detail 2/SD4, the contractor lacks the design and fabrication details for one of the two steel ledger conditions referenced at...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer to provide the missing Detail 2/SD4 that is referenced from Detail 9 (Corner Connection, Section A) and Detail 1 (Panel Reinforcement) on sheet SD3. Clarify whether Detail 2/SD4 was inadvertently removed or consolidated into Detail 1/SD4, and if...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer to provide the missing Detail 2/SD4 that is referenced from Detail 9 (Corner Connection, Section A) and Detail 1 (Panel Reinforcement) on sheet SD3. Clarify whether Detail 2/SD4 was inadvertently removed or consolid...

Summary: On sheet A200 (EXISTING BUILDING ELEVATIONS), Elevation 3 (EXISTING BUILDING ELEVATION EAST SIDE) annotates the entire east wall with keynote 7, defined as '(E) WALL TO REMAIN.' However, on sheet A101 (OVERALL FLOOR PLAN), the east exterior wall is annotated with diamond keynote 2, defined in the legend as '(N) TILT-UP 8" CONCRETE WALL WITH (N) INSULATED METAL PANEL ON TOP PER STRUCTURAL DWG.' ...

Why it matters: This conflict has significant structural and construction implications. If the east wall is existing and to remain, the structural design would only need to address adding the new insulated metal panel on top, consistent with wall type 1 used on other remaining walls and defined as '(E) TILT-UP 6...

Suggested next step: Please clarify whether the east wall of the building is an existing wall to remain (as shown on A200 Elevation 3 with keynote 7) or a new 8" tilt-up concrete wall (as shown on A101 with wall type 2). If the east wall is existing and to remain, please revise A101 to show wall t...

RFI draft: Please clarify whether the east wall of the building is an existing wall to remain (as shown on A200 Elevation 3 with keynote 7) or a new 8" tilt-up concrete wall (as shown on A101 with wall type 2). If the east wall is existing and to remain, ple...

Summary: Detail 28 on sheet A504 (3-HR Fire Rated Wall Connection to the Roof) specifies '3 LAYERS 3/4" SHEETROCK ULTRACODE CORE PANELS' for the fire-rated wall cladding and explicitly cross-references 'SEE DETAIL 18/A501' for the base wall assembly. However, the referenced Detail 18 on sheet A501 (3-Hour Fire Rated Wall) specifies '5/8" SHEETROCK® BRAND PANEL ECOSMART PANELS FIRECODE® X' under GA FILE ...

Why it matters: Fire-rated assemblies must use the specific products and configurations validated by the referenced GA (Gypsum Association) fire test. GA FILE NO. WP 2933 cited in Detail 18/A501 corresponds to a specific tested assembly using 5/8" ECOSMART FIRECODE X panels. Substituting 3/4" ULTRACODE CORE pane...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct gypsum board product and thickness for the 3-hour fire-rated wall assembly. Detail 28 on A504 specifies 3 layers of 3/4" SHEETROCK ULTRACODE CORE PANELS, while the referenced Detail 18 on A501 specifies 5/8" SHEETROCK ECOSMART PANELS FIRECODE X per G...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct gypsum board product and thickness for the 3-hour fire-rated wall assembly. Detail 28 on A504 specifies 3 layers of 3/4" SHEETROCK ULTRACODE CORE PANELS, while the referenced Detail 18 on A501 specifies 5/8" SHEETROCK EC...