Plan Review: 236 Issues Found

Summary: 344 index entries | 97 perfect matches | 6 mismatched | 241 missing Mismatched (6): FP4.0: Expected: BUILDING SECTIONS (FP4.0) | Actual: BUILDING SECTIONS (A4.11)(p40) RM5.100: Expected: COVER SHEET (RM5.100) | Actual: COVER SHEET (G0.01)(p1) A4.22: Expected: WALL SECTIONS (A4.22) | Actual: WALL SECTIONS (A4.20)(p41) A5.11: Expected: BUILDING DETAILS - EXTERIOR (A...

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: 241 missing, 6 mismatched out of 344 sheets

Summary: The exit width calculations for "OTHER EGRESS COMPONETS" incorrectly determine the provided width by adding the width of a door and a landing together: "(1 EXIT DOOR + 1 UPPER LANDING) = 96\" PROVIDED". Under standard egress principles referenced by ADA 207.1, egress capacity must be calculated based on the clear width of the specific egress components (e.g., exit doors) and cannot be inflated ...

Why it matters: Combining dissimilar components to satisfy total exit width masks the actual provided egress capacity of the floor's exit doors. If the actual doors provide less than the "73\" MIN WIDTH REQUIRED" (e.g., if two standard 36" doors provide only 72" of capacity), the design fails life safety require...

Suggested next step: Please revise the "OTHER EGRESS COMPONENTS" calculation to use only the actual clear width of the exit doors serving the floor, without artificially adding landing widths. Verify that the corrected provided exit door width meets or exceeds the 73-inch minimum requirement.

RFI draft: Please revise the "OTHER EGRESS COMPONENTS" calculation to use only the actual clear width of the exit doors serving the floor, without artificially adding landing widths. Verify that the corrected provided exit door width meets or exceeds the 73-...

Summary: The drawing shows an outward-swinging door providing access into "SOILED HOLDING 2013", which has a dimensioned physical interior width of "1'- 11 5/8"" (23.625 inches). Code section 404.2 requires doors intended for user passage to comply with section 404.2.3, which dictates that "Door openings shall provide a clear width of 32 inches (815 mm) minimum." Because the entire physical width of the...

Why it matters: Installing a doorway narrower than 32 inches creates an impassable barrier for wheelchair users, strictly violating ADA accessible route and door clearance requirements. This will cause a major compliance failure during inspections and will require walls to be demolished and reframed to correct.

Suggested next step: Please revise the framing layout to increase the interior width of Soiled Holding 2013 to ensure the space can accommodate a doorway with at least a 32-inch minimum clear width.

RFI draft: Please revise the framing layout to increase the interior width of Soiled Holding 2013 to ensure the space can accommodate a doorway with at least a 32-inch minimum clear width.

Summary: The floor plan designates a centerline dimension of 2' - 5 3/4" (29.75 inches) for the water closet in Public Family Toilet 1009. ADA Building Code Section 604.2 explicitly requires the centerline of a water closet to be 16 inches minimum to 18 inches maximum from the side wall or partition to ensure the side grab bar is within accessible reach.

Why it matters: If the plumbing waste line is roughed in at 29.75 inches from the side wall, the toilet will be installed too far from the side grab bar, violating accessibility requirements and preventing safe transfer for users with disabilities. Correcting this mistake after the concrete slab is poured would ...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the intended layout for Public Family Toilet 1009. Revise the floor plan to position the water closet centerline 16 to 18 inches from the adjacent side wall, and verify this updated dimension with the plumbing engineer prior to underground rough-in.

RFI draft: Please confirm the intended layout for Public Family Toilet 1009. Revise the floor plan to position the water closet centerline 16 to 18 inches from the adjacent side wall, and verify this updated dimension with the plumbing engineer prior to unde...

Summary: On the STAIR 2 - SECTION 2 drawing, the lower flight from Floor 1 is dimensioned with an overall vertical rise of 8'-0" (96 inches) and is designated to have "13 EQ RISERS". Mathematically dividing the 96-inch rise by 13 equal risers yields a riser height of approximately 7.38 inches. This exceeds the maximum allowable riser height of 7 inches mandated by ADA Section 504.2, directly contradicti...

Why it matters: If constructed as dimensioned with 13 risers over an 8'-0" rise, the stairs will violate ADA accessibility requirements and fail inspection. Correcting this to comply with the 7-inch maximum will require increasing the number of risers to at least 14 (resulting in ~6.85" risers). Adding an additi...

Suggested next step: Please verify the riser count and floor-to-landing dimension for the lower flight of Stair 2. An 8'-0" rise with 13 risers yields a 7.38" riser height, violating the ADA 7" maximum. Confirm if 14 risers are required, and provide updated dimensions to ensure the added tread len...

RFI draft: Please verify the riser count and floor-to-landing dimension for the lower flight of Stair 2. An 8'-0" rise with 13 risers yields a 7.38" riser height, violating the ADA 7" maximum. Confirm if 14 risers are required, and provide updated dimensions...

Summary: The egress width calculation for 'OTHER EGRESS COMPONENTS' determines a required width of 73 inches (365 occupants x 0.2 factor) but incorrectly achieves the '96" PROVIDED' by adding the width of '1 EXIT DOOR' and '1 UPPER LANDING'. Under CBC 1005.4, egress capacity cannot be reduced along the path of travel, meaning the total capacity from the floor is constrained by the physical exit doors. C...

Why it matters: Adding landing dimensions to door widths masks an undersized egress system, which restricts occupant evacuation during an emergency and represents a critical life safety hazard. The plan reviewer will reject this egress calculation, requiring a redesign of the exit doors (e.g., widening them) or ...

Suggested next step: Revise the egress capacity calculation to sum only the clear widths of the actual exit doors serving the floor. Verify that the total provided door width meets or exceeds the required 73 inches, and widen the exit doors if necessary to comply with CBC 1005.3.2 and 1005.4.

RFI draft: Revise the egress capacity calculation to sum only the clear widths of the actual exit doors serving the floor. Verify that the total provided door width meets or exceeds the required 73 inches, and widen the exit doors if necessary to comply with...

Summary: General Note 2 states that all gypsum wallboard shall be 5/8" Type 'X', but explicitly lists an exception for restrooms (Note 2.A), where it requires 5/8" moisture and mold resistant gypsum board without specifying that it must be Type 'X'. However, the floor plan shows restrooms sharing walls with required fire-resistance-rated assemblies. For example, 'PUBLIC FAMILY TOILET 1009' shares a wall...

Why it matters: Using standard non-Type X moisture-resistant board on a fire-rated assembly compromises its fire-resistance rating. This poses a severe life safety risk, particularly at interior exit stairways where the enclosure must prevent fire and smoke from penetrating the egress path. This will result in f...

Suggested next step: Please revise General Note 2.A to clarify that where moisture and mold resistant gypsum board is installed at fire-resistance-rated assemblies (such as the 1-hour shaft wall enclosing Stair 2 and the 1-hour fire barrier at Staff Toilet 1035), the gypsum board must be Type 'X' ...

RFI draft: Please revise General Note 2.A to clarify that where moisture and mold resistant gypsum board is installed at fire-resistance-rated assemblies (such as the 1-hour shaft wall enclosing Stair 2 and the 1-hour fire barrier at Staff Toilet 1035), the ...

Summary: The framing plan indicates an interior shaft clear width of 6'-9" (81 inches) for Stair 1 (Room 1005). The drawing shows a switchback (U-shaped) stairway configuration inside this shaft, meaning two stair flights must be placed side-by-side. CBC Section 1011.2 mandates a minimum stairway width of 44 inches. To accommodate two 44-inch flights, the shaft must have an interior clear width of at le...

Why it matters: Stairways are a critical life-safety egress component. A stair enclosure that is too narrow restricts emergency evacuation and will result in immediate rejection during plan check or field inspection. Correcting this requires significant structural and architectural redesign to enlarge the stair ...

Suggested next step: Please widen the Stair 1 1005 enclosure to provide a minimum interior clear width of at least 7'-4" (88 inches) to properly accommodate two compliant 44-inch wide stair flights per CBC 1011.2.

RFI draft: Please widen the Stair 1 1005 enclosure to provide a minimum interior clear width of at least 7'-4" (88 inches) to properly accommodate two compliant 44-inch wide stair flights per CBC 1011.2.

Summary: The floor plan shows MECH SHAFT 2067 separated from adjacent rooms (such as Treatment 2066 and Mohs Lab 2068) by unrated braced or furring partitions (indicated by empty black outlines). Shaft enclosures must be constructed as fire barriers. Unlike MECH SHAFT 2015G, which is properly enclosed by a '1 HOUR FIRE BARRIER / SHAFT' wall type, MECH SHAFT 2067 is incorrectly enclosed by unrated partit...

Why it matters: Building code Section 713.2 requires shaft enclosures to be constructed as fire barriers in accordance with Section 707. Section 713.4 mandates a minimum fire-resistance rating of 1 hour for shaft enclosures connecting fewer than four stories (or 2 hours for four or more). Enclosing a mechanical ...

Suggested next step: Please revise the partition types enclosing MECH SHAFT 2067 to be Type 1Sa (1 HOUR FIRE BARRIER / SHAFT) or equivalent to provide the minimum required 1-hour fire-resistance rating in compliance with CBC Sections 713.2 and 713.4.

RFI draft: Please revise the partition types enclosing MECH SHAFT 2067 to be Type 1Sa (1 HOUR FIRE BARRIER / SHAFT) or equivalent to provide the minimum required 1-hour fire-resistance rating in compliance with CBC Sections 713.2 and 713.4.

Summary: The floor plan depicts "MECH SHAFT 2067" enclosed by standard partition walls without any fire-resistance-rated hatching. CBC 713.4 requires shaft enclosures to have a fire-resistance rating of not less than 1 hour (constructed as fire barriers). The "PARTITION GRAPHIC LEGEND" provides a specific hatching pattern ("1 HOUR FIRE BARRIER / SHAFT 1Sa") for this exact purpose, but it is omitted from...

Why it matters: Unrated mechanical shafts allow fire and smoke to easily migrate between floors, posing a severe life-safety risk. Failing to graphically specify the correct fire-rated wall assembly on the plan will likely result in the installation of standard unrated drywall partitions, causing major tear-outs...

Suggested next step: Update the wall type for the enclosure of MECH SHAFT 2067 to graphically reflect the required fire-resistance rating (e.g., 1 HOUR FIRE BARRIER / SHAFT 1Sa) in accordance with CBC 713.4, and verify that all necessary penetration details (dampers, firestopping) are specified.

RFI draft: Update the wall type for the enclosure of MECH SHAFT 2067 to graphically reflect the required fire-resistance rating (e.g., 1 HOUR FIRE BARRIER / SHAFT 1Sa) in accordance with CBC 713.4, and verify that all necessary penetration details (dampers, ...

Summary: The architectural plan shows the door connecting Corridor 2010 to Stair 2 (1011) swinging inward directly over the stair landing. The door is hinged on the outer enclosing wall of the stairwell, causing the door leaf to swing perpendicularly across the primary egress path of the landing towards the center dividing wall. Because the landing depth appears proportional to the stair width, a standa...

Why it matters: A door swing that blocks a stair landing significantly restricts the building's primary egress path, posing a severe life safety risk during an emergency evacuation. This configuration directly violates building code limits on egress width encroachment and will result in a permitting failure or r...

Suggested next step: Please redesign the entry to Stair 2 to comply with egress encroachment limits. Consider creating a recessed alcove in Corridor 2010 for the door to swing into, or increase the depth of the stair landing so the required egress width is maintained when the door is in any position.

RFI draft: Please redesign the entry to Stair 2 to comply with egress encroachment limits. Consider creating a recessed alcove in Corridor 2010 for the door to swing into, or increase the depth of the stair landing so the required egress width is maintained ...

Summary: Wall Assembly Note 2 specifies a '1/2" THIN BRICK SYSTEM' and 'SETTING BED & MORTR' applied directly over '1-1/2" POLY ISO RIGID INSULATION'. CBC Section 1403.4 explicitly requires that the backing for adhered veneer be constructed of concrete, masonry, steel framing, or wood framing. Polyisocyanurate foam is not an approved structural backing. Applying mortar directly to rigid insulation witho...

Why it matters: Relying on the bond between a standard mortar setting bed and the facer of rigid insulation cannot safely support the dead and wind loads of the masonry, creating a severe delamination and falling hazard. Additionally, applying mortar directly to the insulation without a drainage plane or lath pr...

Suggested next step: Clarify the thin brick veneer assembly (Note 2) to include an approved structural backing system. Provide details specifying a metal lath securely anchored through the rigid insulation to the metal framing, or an approved cementitious backer board, along with a specified drain...

RFI draft: Clarify the thin brick veneer assembly (Note 2) to include an approved structural backing system. Provide details specifying a metal lath securely anchored through the rigid insulation to the metal framing, or an approved cementitious backer board...

Summary: Wall Assembly Note 2 specifies a thin brick veneer system adhered with a setting bed and mortar directly over 1-1/2" poly iso rigid insulation. The layer definition completely omits metal lath, wire mesh, or any mechanical anchors passing through the foam insulation to the structural backing (metal studs).

Why it matters: Under CBC 1403.4, foam plastic insulation is not an approved backing for adhered masonry veneer; the backing must be concrete, masonry, steel framing, or wood framing. While continuous insulation is allowed between the veneer and the backing, CBC 1410.2.1 requires the veneer to develop a positive...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the attachment method for the thin brick veneer in Wall Assembly Note 2. Update the detail to include metal lath mechanically fastened through the rigid insulation to the metal studs to provide a code-compliant structural backing, or specify an approved propriet...

RFI draft: Please clarify the attachment method for the thin brick veneer in Wall Assembly Note 2. Update the detail to include metal lath mechanically fastened through the rigid insulation to the metal studs to provide a code-compliant structural backing, o...

Summary: The typical wall assembly for the thin brick specifies applying a 1/2" thin brick adhered veneer and mortar setting bed directly over 1-1/2" polyisocyanurate rigid insulation. It fails to specify a metal lath or similar mechanical attachment through the continuous insulation to the steel framing. Polyiso foam is not a permitted structural backing for adhered veneer, as it cannot develop the req...

Why it matters: Without mechanical lath tied back to the structural framing, the thin brick and mortar will fail to bond to the rigid insulation facer, leading to a high risk of catastrophic detachment and falling masonry. Furthermore, trapping moisture against the impermeable foam insulation without a means for...

Suggested next step: Please revise the thin brick wall assembly to specify an approved lath system (e.g., self-furring metal lath) mechanically fastened through the rigid continuous insulation to the metal stud framing. Additionally, provide a weather-resistive barrier or drainage plane on the ext...

RFI draft: Please revise the thin brick wall assembly to specify an approved lath system (e.g., self-furring metal lath) mechanically fastened through the rigid continuous insulation to the metal stud framing. Additionally, provide a weather-resistive barrie...

Summary: The wall section details call for a "1/2” THIN BRICK SYSTEM, o/ SETTING BED & MORTR" to be applied directly over "1-1/2” POLY ISO RIGID INSULATION". There is no specification for metal lath, wire fabric, or an approved proprietary panel system to anchor the veneer through the continuous insulation to the structural framing. Additionally, the weather resistive barrier is detailed behind the rigi...

Why it matters: Mortar does not form a structural bond to the facers of rigid polyisocyanurate foam boards. Without proper mechanical attachment (such as metal lath anchored through the rigid insulation to the metal studs) and a dedicated drainage plane behind the mortar, the thin brick veneer will lack the stru...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the attachment method and drainage plane for the thin brick system over the rigid insulation. Provide an updated wall section detail that includes a weather resistive barrier/drainage plane over the rigid insulation, along with metal lath and mechanical fastener...

RFI draft: Please clarify the attachment method and drainage plane for the thin brick system over the rigid insulation. Provide an updated wall section detail that includes a weather resistive barrier/drainage plane over the rigid insulation, along with meta...