Plan Review: 119 Issues Found

Summary: 58 index entries | 51 perfect matches | 7 mismatched | 0 missing Mismatched (7): E.0.1: Expected: TITLE SHEET (E.0.1) | Actual: TITLE SHEET (T-1.0)(p1) E.0.2: Expected: TITLE SHEET (E.0.2) | Actual: TITLE SHEET (T-1.0)(p1) E.0.3: Expected: TITLE SHEET (E.0.3) | Actual: TITLE SHEET (T-1.0)(p1) E.0.4: Expected: TITLE SHEET (E.0.4) | Actual: TITLE SHEET (T-1.0)...

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: 0 missing, 7 mismatched out of 58 sheets

Summary: The floor plan shows that Laundry 102 (353 SF) has only one door — Door 102, which is explicitly described as an interior door between Clean Linen 101 and Laundry 102. No other exit door (oval door tag) is shown for Laundry 102 on any wall: the south exterior wall contains only a louver/vent (Keynote 6), and no additional door tag appears on the north or east walls of the Laundry room. Clean Li...

Why it matters: This is a fundamental egress design deficiency that will be flagged during plan check and would prevent permit issuance. If discovered during construction, it would require adding an additional exit door from Laundry 102 directly to the corridor, an adjacent non-storage space, or the exterior, wh...

Suggested next step: RFI to Architect: Section 1016.2, item 5 of the 2022 CBC prohibits egress through storage rooms. The plan shows Laundry 102's only exit is Door 102 into Clean Linen 101 (a linen storage room). Please provide a direct exit from Laundry 102 to a corridor, exterior, or other comp...

RFI draft: RFI to Architect: Section 1016.2, item 5 of the 2022 CBC prohibits egress through storage rooms. The plan shows Laundry 102's only exit is Door 102 into Clean Linen 101 (a linen storage room). Please provide a direct exit from Laundry 102 to a cor...

Summary: The overall plumbing floor plan shows only one small single-user restroom (containing one water closet and one lavatory, located immediately left of Storage 262) for the entire building. The building program includes three Office Rooms (95, 98, 263), Conference Room 264, Laundry Room 267, Clean Linen 265, Soiled Linen 266, and Storage 262. Per CBC Section 2901.1, minimum plumbing fixture requir...

Why it matters: This deficiency will be identified during plan review as non-compliant with minimum plumbing fixture requirements under the California Plumbing Code. Adding restrooms after plan check would require significant architectural redesign (new room layouts, additional wet walls), structural modificatio...

Suggested next step: Confirm the total occupant load for the building per CBC Table 1004.5 and verify the minimum required plumbing fixtures per California Plumbing Code Table 422.1. If additional toilet rooms are required, provide revised architectural and plumbing plans showing compliant fixture...

RFI draft: Confirm the total occupant load for the building per CBC Table 1004.5 and verify the minimum required plumbing fixtures per California Plumbing Code Table 422.1. If additional toilet rooms are required, provide revised architectural and plumbing p...

Summary: Detail 13 (NOTCHING/BORING) for 'EXTERIOR WALLS AND BEARING PARTITION' shows two maximum notch depth callouts both labeled as 2X4 studs: '2X4 STUD - 7/8" MAX' and '2X4 STUD - 1-3/8" MAX.' The detail states '25% ALLOWED EXTERIOR WALLS AND BEARING PARTITION.' However, 1-3/8" (1.375") equals 39.3% of a 2X4 stud's 3.5" actual depth, directly exceeding the 25% limit shown on the same detail. The 1-3...

Why it matters: If followed as drawn, carpenters would be permitted to notch 2X4 bearing wall and exterior wall studs to 1-3/8", removing nearly 40% of the stud cross-section. This would critically compromise the load-bearing and lateral capacity of these studs. For a Type VA Occupancy B building adjacent to a h...

Suggested next step: Request the architect/structural engineer correct the bearing wall notching detail (Detail 13) to properly label the second callout as '2X6 STUD - 1-3/8" MAX' instead of '2X4 STUD - 1-3/8" MAX.' Confirm that the corrected detail matches the applicable wood framing notching lim...

RFI draft: Request the architect/structural engineer correct the bearing wall notching detail (Detail 13) to properly label the second callout as '2X6 STUD - 1-3/8" MAX' instead of '2X4 STUD - 1-3/8" MAX.' Confirm that the corrected detail matches the applic...

Summary: Keynote 14 on the Roof Plan explicitly describes the roof assembly as 'COMPOSITION SHINGLES OVER ROOFING UNDERLAYMENT ON 1/2" PLYWOOD ROOF SHEATHING OVER PREFABRICATED WOOD TRUSSES PER STRUCTURAL.' This description lists every layer from exterior finish (shingles) to structure (trusses) but does not include any thermal insulation. For a wood-framed nonresidential Occupancy Type B building, Sect...

Why it matters: If constructed per Keynote 14, the roof will fail the mandatory energy code envelope inspection, requiring costly retrofit insulation after the roof is already sheathed and shingled. Section 120.7(a)3A further requires that insulation be 'installed in direct contact with a roof or ceiling that is...

Suggested next step: Request the architect clarify the complete roof/ceiling insulation strategy to meet the mandatory U-factor ≤ 0.075 per Section 120.7(a)2. Specifically: (1) What type and R-value of insulation will be installed? (2) Will insulation be placed at the roof deck level, within the t...

RFI draft: Request the architect clarify the complete roof/ceiling insulation strategy to meet the mandatory U-factor ≤ 0.075 per Section 120.7(a)2. Specifically: (1) What type and R-value of insulation will be installed? (2) Will insulation be placed at the...

Summary: The specification Section 23 31 13, item 2.05D (Ducts Serving Dryer Exhaust Systems) states 'BUTTON-PUNCH OR BOLT-CONNECTION IN STANDING SEAMS SHALL BE SPACED AT FIXED CENTERS NOT GREATER THAN 6-INCHES.' CMC Section 504.4 explicitly prohibits this: 'Exhaust ducts shall not be assembled with screws or other fastening means that extend into the duct and that are capable of catching lint, and that...

Why it matters: For a laundry addition with commercial dryers, lint accumulation in exhaust ducts is a significant fire hazard. The specification's explicit allowance of bolt connections in dryer exhaust duct standing seams directly contradicts the California Mechanical Code's safety requirement. This will be fl...

Suggested next step: Request the mechanical engineer revise Section 23 31 13, Specification 2.05D to remove 'OR BOLT-CONNECTION' from the dryer exhaust duct specification and clarify that all fastening methods for dryer exhaust ducts must comply with CMC 504.4, ensuring no fasteners extend into th...

RFI draft: Request the mechanical engineer revise Section 23 31 13, Specification 2.05D to remove 'OR BOLT-CONNECTION' from the dryer exhaust duct specification and clarify that all fastening methods for dryer exhaust ducts must comply with CMC 504.4, ensuri...

Summary: The Plumbing Pipe Material Schedule specifies natural gas piping for BELOW FLOOR (INTERIOR) as "ASTM A53 SCHEDULE 40 GALVANIZED STEEL 'BLACK' PIPE." This specification includes the term "GALVANIZED STEEL," which denotes zinc-coated pipe. CPC Section 1210.1.3.1 explicitly states that zinc coating (galvanizing) shall not be deemed adequate protection for underground gas piping. Specifying galvani...

Why it matters: If installed as specified with galvanized steel, the underground gas piping would lack adequate corrosion protection per code. This would be flagged during plumbing rough-in inspection and would require piping to be removed and replaced with properly protected material (e.g., properly coated blac...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the pipe material specified for natural gas piping below floor (interior). The current specification states 'GALVANIZED STEEL BLACK PIPE,' which is self-contradictory and violates CPC Section 1210.1.3.1, which prohibits zinc coating (galvanizing) as adequate pro...

RFI draft: Please clarify the pipe material specified for natural gas piping below floor (interior). The current specification states 'GALVANIZED STEEL BLACK PIPE,' which is self-contradictory and violates CPC Section 1210.1.3.1, which prohibits zinc coating...

Summary: The VRF System Schedule on M-0.2 specifies the condensing unit HP-1 (Toshiba MCY-MUB0368) with a power supply of 230V, 1PH. Note 11 of the same schedule directs the user to Detail 1/M-5.2 for the control diagram. However, Detail 1 on M-5.2 ('SPLIT SYSTEM HEAT PUMP CONTROL DIAGRAM') shows the condensing unit powered at 208V/3PH/60HZ. This creates two direct contradictions for the condensing unit...

Why it matters: A 1-phase vs. 3-phase conflict for the condensing unit fundamentally affects the electrical infrastructure: panel type (single-phase vs. three-phase), number of conductors, conduit sizing, breaker configuration (1-pole/2-pole vs. 3-pole), and MCA/MOCP values. The voltage discrepancy (230V vs. 208...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct voltage and phase for the VRF condensing unit HP-1 (Toshiba MCY-MUB0368). The VRF System Schedule on M-0.2 indicates 230V/1PH, while the Split System Heat Pump Control Diagram (Detail 1/M-5.2) shows 208V/3PH/60HZ. Please also confirm the correct volt...

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct voltage and phase for the VRF condensing unit HP-1 (Toshiba MCY-MUB0368). The VRF System Schedule on M-0.2 indicates 230V/1PH, while the Split System Heat Pump Control Diagram (Detail 1/M-5.2) shows 208V/3PH/60HZ. Please...

Summary: The Wall Schedule on A-1.1 specifies the 1-hour fire-rated wall assembly with '2×6 WOOD STUDS @ 16" O.C.' However, Detail 8 '1 HOUR RATED WALL' on A-8.1 specifies 'MIN. 2X4 STUDS AT 24" O.C.' This is a direct conflict in both stud size (2×6 vs. 2×4) and stud spacing (16" O.C. vs. 24" O.C.) for the same 1-hour rated wall assembly. Additionally, the Wall Schedule does not mention resilient channe...

Why it matters: This conflict directly affects the fire rating, structural capacity, and code compliance of the 1-hour fire-rated walls (wall type 2B) used to separate areas such as the laundry from adjacent spaces. A UL-listed 1-hour wall assembly with 2×4 studs at 24" O.C. is a fundamentally different tested a...

Suggested next step: Request clarification on the correct stud size and spacing for the 1-hour fire-rated wall assembly: (1) Should studs be 2×6 at 16" O.C. per the Wall Schedule on A-1.1, or MIN. 2×4 at 24" O.C. per Detail 8 on A-8.1? (2) Which specific UL assembly number is intended? (3) Are res...

RFI draft: Request clarification on the correct stud size and spacing for the 1-hour fire-rated wall assembly: (1) Should studs be 2×6 at 16" O.C. per the Wall Schedule on A-1.1, or MIN. 2×4 at 24" O.C. per Detail 8 on A-8.1? (2) Which specific UL assembly n...

Summary: The Door Schedule on sheet A-6.0 references Detail 4/A-8.0 for all door frame jambs and Detail 5/A-8.0 for all door frame heads. However, on sheet A-8.0, Detail 4 is titled 'TYP. CONT. FTG @ EXT'R WALL' (a structural continuous footing detail), Detail 5 is titled 'DOOR JAMB', and Detail 6 is titled 'DOOR HEADER'. The schedule's Jamb column (4/A-8.0) directs to a footing detail instead of the do...

Why it matters: This cross-reference error affects all 13 doors listed in the schedule. Contractors and inspectors following the Door Schedule will be directed to the wrong details for frame jamb and head construction, causing confusion during fabrication and installation. The door jamb and header details contai...

Suggested next step: Request the architect correct the Door Schedule frame detail references for all doors: the Frame Jamb column should reference 5/A-8.0 (DOOR JAMB) and the Frame Head column should reference 6/A-8.0 (DOOR HEADER). Confirm that Detail 4/A-8.0 (TYP. CONT. FTG @ EXT'R WALL) is not ...

RFI draft: Request the architect correct the Door Schedule frame detail references for all doors: the Frame Jamb column should reference 5/A-8.0 (DOOR JAMB) and the Frame Head column should reference 6/A-8.0 (DOOR HEADER). Confirm that Detail 4/A-8.0 (TYP. C...

Summary: Architectural Section #1 on A-1.4 shows lettered grid lines A through L along the building's longitudinal direction, and Sections #2 and #3 show numbered grid lines 1 through 7 along the transverse direction. The Structural Roof Framing Plan on S-1.2 uses the opposite convention: numbered grids (1, 1.3, 1.4, 2, 3, 4) run along the longitudinal direction and lettered grids (A, B, C, D) run along...

Why it matters: A fundamentally mismatched grid system between the architectural and structural drawings undermines cross-referencing for every trade on the project. Structural elements located by grid intersection on S-1.2 (e.g., headers at grid 2/B, shear wall panels, truss bearing points) cannot be correlated...

Suggested next step: Request the design team to reconcile the grid systems across the architectural and structural drawings so that a single, consistent grid labeling convention and grid layout is used for the laundry addition. Clarify which grid labels and grid line count are correct, reissue all...

RFI draft: Request the design team to reconcile the grid systems across the architectural and structural drawings so that a single, consistent grid labeling convention and grid layout is used for the laundry addition. Clarify which grid labels and grid line ...

Summary: The Washer Elevation (Detail 2/13) explicitly identifies the equipment load as "SYN055 WASHER-EXTRACTOR STATIC WEIGHT =948 LBS." The term "static weight" refers to the empty/dry weight of the machine and excludes the weight of water and laundry contents during operation. ASCE 7-22 Section 3.1.3 requires that dead loads include "the weight of fixed service equipment, including the maximum weight...

Why it matters: For a laundry building adjacent to a healthcare facility, under-designed equipment anchorage and housekeeping pads pose a risk of structural failure during normal operations or seismic events. If the foundation pad, dowels, and adhesive anchors were sized using only the 948 lb static weight inste...

Suggested next step: Please confirm that the structural design of the washer-extractor housekeeping pad (Detail 14), anchorage (Detail 18), and reinforcement (Detail 13/Washer Elevation) accounts for the maximum operating weight of the SYN055 washer-extractor including the maximum weight of water ...

RFI draft: Please confirm that the structural design of the washer-extractor housekeeping pad (Detail 14), anchorage (Detail 18), and reinforcement (Detail 13/Washer Elevation) accounts for the maximum operating weight of the SYN055 washer-extractor includin...

Summary: Detail 13 (NOTCHING/BORING), in the '25% ALLOWED EXTERIOR WALLS AND BEARING PARTITION' sub-detail, labels both maximum notch dimensions as applying to a '2X4 STUD'. The first callout '2X4 STUD - 7/8" MAX' is correct (25% of 3.5" actual depth = 0.875"). However, the second callout reads '2X4 STUD - 1-3/8" MAX', which would indicate a 2x4 bearing stud can be notched to 1-3/8" — approximately 39.3...

Why it matters: If a framer follows this detail as drawn and notches 2x4 bearing or exterior wall studs to 1-3/8", those studs would lose approximately 40% of their cross-section at the notch rather than the permitted 25%. This over-notching significantly reduces the load-carrying capacity of bearing wall studs ...

Suggested next step: Request the design team confirm the stud size label error in the '25% ALLOWED EXTERIOR WALLS AND BEARING PARTITION' portion of Detail 13 on sheet A-8.1, and issue a corrected detail with '2X6 STUD - 1-3/8" MAX' in place of the current '2X4 STUD - 1-3/8" MAX'.

RFI draft: Request the design team confirm the stud size label error in the '25% ALLOWED EXTERIOR WALLS AND BEARING PARTITION' portion of Detail 13 on sheet A-8.1, and issue a corrected detail with '2X6 STUD - 1-3/8" MAX' in place of the current '2X4 STUD - ...

Summary: Fire Resistive Assembly Note #8 on the drawing directs that "WATER-RESISTANT GYPSUM BACKING BOARD SHALL BE INSTALLED OVER OR AS PART OF THE FIRE-RESISTANCE RATED SYSTEM IN SHOWER AND TUB AREAS TO RECEIVE CERAMIC OR PLASTIC WALL TILE OR PLASTIC FINISHED WALL PANELS." However, CBC Section 2509.2 requires that materials used as a base for wall tile in tub and shower areas shall be of materials lis...

Why it matters: If the contractor follows this note and installs water-resistant gypsum backing board as the tile substrate in shower or tub areas, the installation will fail code inspection. The wrong substrate material behind tile in wet areas will eventually degrade, leading to tile failure, water infiltratio...

Suggested next step: Request the architect revise Fire Resistive Assembly Note #8 to specify code-compliant backerboard materials per CBC Table 2509.2 (glass mat gypsum backing panel per ASTM C1178, fiber-cement backer board per ASTM C1288, or fiber-mat reinforced cementitious backer unit per ASTM...

RFI draft: Request the architect revise Fire Resistive Assembly Note #8 to specify code-compliant backerboard materials per CBC Table 2509.2 (glass mat gypsum backing panel per ASTM C1178, fiber-cement backer board per ASTM C1288, or fiber-mat reinforced cem...

Summary: Note 1 on the drawing states that concrete special inspection is exempted "PER 2025 CBC, SECTION 1705.3.2-2.3." The governing code for this review is the 2022 California Building Code, which does not contain a Section 1705.3.2-2.3. The drawing explicitly references a different code edition (2025 CBC) and a section number that does not exist in the 2022 CBC. Per 2022 CBC Section 1901.6, special ...

Why it matters: This is a significant plan review issue. The Authority Having Jurisdiction (City of San Diego, as identified in the Statement of Special Inspections) will review the project against the 2022 CBC. An exemption citing a non-existent code section will likely be rejected, causing permit delays. If th...

Suggested next step: Request the Structural Engineer of Record verify the applicable code edition and identify the correct 2022 CBC section that provides the basis for exempting concrete special inspections. If no valid exemption exists under the 2022 CBC, update the Verification & Inspection Sche...

RFI draft: Request the Structural Engineer of Record verify the applicable code edition and identify the correct 2022 CBC section that provides the basis for exempting concrete special inspections. If no valid exemption exists under the 2022 CBC, update the ...