Plan Review: 127 Issues Found

Summary: 262 index entries | 82 perfect matches | 53 mismatched | 127 missing Mismatched (53): T-2.1: Expected: GENERAL NOTES (T-2.1) | Actual: GENERAL NOTES PAGE 1 (T-2.1)(p3) T-2.2: Expected: GENERAL NOTES (T-2.2) | Actual: GENERAL NOTES PAGE 2 (T-2.2)(p4) T-2.3: Expected: GENERAL NOTES (T-2.3) | Actual: GENERAL NOTES PAGE 3 (T-2.3)(p5) T-2.4: Expected: GENERAL NOTES (T-...

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: 127 missing, 53 mismatched out of 262 sheets

Summary: The structural general notes explicitly state that the project is designed in accordance with the "2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE" and references "CBC 2022 SECTION 1704.6". However, the project is required to comply with the 2025 California Building Code. Additionally, the Structural Observation form is dated "02/03/2026", which falls under the 2025 code cycle that became effective on January 1,...

Why it matters: Submitting structural plans and criteria based on an outdated building code version will result in plan check rejection by the jurisdiction. The structural engineer must ensure that all design calculations, seismic parameters, loading criteria, and referencing standards are verified against the 2...

Suggested next step: Please revise the general notes to reference the 2025 California Building Code. Additionally, please verify that all structural design criteria, code sections, and referenced standards throughout the documents are compliant with the 2025 code cycle requirements.

RFI draft: Please revise the general notes to reference the 2025 California Building Code. Additionally, please verify that all structural design criteria, code sections, and referenced standards throughout the documents are compliant with the 2025 code cycl...

Summary: The structural general notes specify a concrete masonry compressive strength (f'm) of 1500 PSI. This directly conflicts with the building code, which mandates a minimum specified compressive strength (f'm) of 2,000 psi for concrete masonry.

Why it matters: Specifying concrete masonry units below the code-mandated minimum compressive strength compromises the structural integrity of the masonry assemblies. This leads to insufficient structural capacity to safely carry anticipated gravity and seismic loads, which will result in failed structural revie...

Suggested next step: Please revise the concrete block units specification to require a minimum compressive strength (f'm) of 2,000 psi to comply with the code minimum in Table 4.3.1, and verify that all masonry design calculations and details are based on this updated minimum value.

RFI draft: Please revise the concrete block units specification to require a minimum compressive strength (f'm) of 2,000 psi to comply with the code minimum in Table 4.3.1, and verify that all masonry design calculations and details are based on this updated...

Summary: The 'APPLICABLE CODES' section on the drawings explicitly states the project is designed under the 'LA COUNTY BUILDING CODE, 2017 EDITION' and 'LA COUNTY RESIDENTIAL CODE, 2017 EDITION'. This directly contradicts the requirement to design and construct the project according to the current 2025 California Residential Code.

Why it matters: Submitting plans based on an 8-year-old code cycle will result in immediate rejection by the permitting authority. The project must be reviewed and constructed under the 2025 codes, meaning any details relying on 2017 standards (such as structural, energy, or egress requirements) may require sign...

Suggested next step: Update the Applicable Codes list to reference the current 2025 California Residential Code (and other applicable 2025 state/local codes), and verify all architectural and structural details comply with the updated code requirements.

RFI draft: Update the Applicable Codes list to reference the current 2025 California Residential Code (and other applicable 2025 state/local codes), and verify all architectural and structural details comply with the updated code requirements.

Summary: Detail B shows a wide flange beam bolted to a 5/8" thick plate using "(4)-3/4" DIA BOLTS A325-N". The plate is welded all around (indicated by the circle on the 1/4" fillet weld symbol) to the top of the closed "HSS COL PER PLAN". Because the bolts are located entirely within the enclosed footprint of the hollow structural section column, there is no physical access to the underside of the plat...

Why it matters: The connection cannot be constructed as detailed. Since the nuts cannot be installed or tightened, the bolts cannot provide any structural capacity. This prevents the connection from safely supporting factored loads as required by the building code and will cause a work stoppage until an accessib...

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail B to provide an accessible connection. Consider utilizing threaded rods autowelded to the cap plate (as detailed in Detail D) or approved blind bolts to allow installation without requiring access to the inside of the closed HSS column.

RFI draft: Please revise Detail B to provide an accessible connection. Consider utilizing threaded rods autowelded to the cap plate (as detailed in Detail D) or approved blind bolts to allow installation without requiring access to the inside of the closed H...

Summary: The elevation view callouts on the floor plan (A-1.1) fundamentally contradict the orientation titles of the elevations on sheet A-2.1. 1) Marker 'E-01' is located on the right (East/Northeast) side of the floor plan near the 'GARAGE'. However, Elevation 1 is incorrectly titled 'WEST ELEVATION' on A-2.1, despite explicitly depicting the 'GARAGE'. 2) Marker 'E-02' is located on the top (North/N...

Why it matters: Mislabeling the primary building elevations creates a severe coordination issue across all trades. Contractors, structural engineers, and planners rely on accurate cardinal directions to properly locate exterior elements, shear walls, windows, and calculate solar heat gain. Permitting submissions...

Suggested next step: Please verify the true cardinal orientations of all exterior elevations. Update the elevation titles on sheet A-2.1 to correctly reflect their true orientations (e.g., changing Elevation 1 to East/Northeast Elevation), and ensure the elevation markers on A-1.1 correctly align ...

RFI draft: Please verify the true cardinal orientations of all exterior elevations. Update the elevation titles on sheet A-2.1 to correctly reflect their true orientations (e.g., changing Elevation 1 to East/Northeast Elevation), and ensure the elevation mar...

Summary: The architectural elevations (A-2.1) and exterior lighting elevations (DS-0.4) specify the Lower Floor elevation datum as -13'-6" (+87.5'). However, the structural building elevations (S3-00) specify the Lower Level elevation datum as -14'-7".

Why it matters: A 1'-1" discrepancy in the lower floor level datum will cause severe coordination issues during construction, affecting foundation pouring, retaining wall heights, floor framing, stair riser counts, and the placement of exterior fixtures.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct elevation datum for the Lower Floor/Level. Update either the Architectural/Lighting or Structural elevations to ensure all disciplines are coordinated to the same Lower Floor elevation.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct elevation datum for the Lower Floor/Level. Update either the Architectural/Lighting or Structural elevations to ensure all disciplines are coordinated to the same Lower Floor elevation.

Summary: The Architectural plan (A-1.5) establishes the main building finished floor at +6'-0" and the detached Storage Area and Gardener Enclosure at +3'-0". The Structural plan (S2-04) aligns the main structure's slab at 6'-0", but erroneously maintains a Top of Footing (T/FTG) elevation of 5'-0" for the left-side structures (Gardener Enclosure and Storage Area). This conflicts with the +3'-0" archite...

Why it matters: Per structural note F2, footings are typically placed 1 foot below grade. With the architectural finished floor/pavers of the left enclosures set at +3'-0", a T/FTG of 5'-0" would cause the foundation to protrude 2 feet above the intended finished floor surface. The structural footings must step ...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct Top of Footing (T/FTG) elevations for the Gardener Enclosure and Storage Area. Should the continuous footings in this area step down to coordinate with the +3'-0" finished floor elevation shown on the Architectural plans?

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct Top of Footing (T/FTG) elevations for the Gardener Enclosure and Storage Area. Should the continuous footings in this area step down to coordinate with the +3'-0" finished floor elevation shown on the Architectural plans?

Summary: The E-0.1 Electrical/RCP plan utilizes a completely different interior architectural floor layout than the A-1.1 Architectural plan. For example, A-1.1 designates the left wing to include a 'MECHANICAL ROOM AND POOL EQUIPMENT' and an 'ENTERTAINMENT ROOM 525 SQ. FT.', while E-0.1 depicts an open living room with 'HDMI TV NET' connections and sofas in those locations. Similarly, A-1.1 designates ...

Why it matters: If electrical rough-in and fixture placement proceed based on the E-0.1 layout, electrical components (such as data outlets, switches, and recessed lights) will be installed in incorrect locations that conflict with the actual architectural walls and intended room functions. The electrical drawin...

Suggested next step: Please confirm that A-1.1 represents the correct and current architectural layout for the Lower Floor and Basement. If so, please issue a revised E-0.1 Electrical/RCP plan that incorporates the correct architectural background and updates the electrical layout accordingly.

RFI draft: Please confirm that A-1.1 represents the correct and current architectural layout for the Lower Floor and Basement. If so, please issue a revised E-0.1 Electrical/RCP plan that incorporates the correct architectural background and updates the elec...

Summary: The architectural site plan (A-0.1) places the "POOL DECK" at "+0'-0" (+101')" and adjacent "STONE PAVERS" at "+1'-6" (+102.5')" to the east of the Main Residence, aligning the pool area with the main floor elevation. However, the grading and drainage plans (G2, G3) show the "OUTDOOR LOUNGE" in this exact area at "FS: 89.4" and the "POOL" at "FS: 90.0" and "FS=89.9", placing these features at t...

Why it matters: An 11+ foot difference in the planned elevation of major exterior hardscape and pool elements completely alters the site's grading strategy, foundation requirements, retaining wall designs, and accessibility of the outdoor space. This fundamental vertical contradiction must be resolved to ensure ...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended finished surface elevations for the pool and outdoor lounge areas east of the Main Residence. Is the pool intended to be raised at the main level (+101') as shown on the architectural plans, or terraced down to the lower level (~+90') as shown on th...

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended finished surface elevations for the pool and outdoor lounge areas east of the Main Residence. Is the pool intended to be raised at the main level (+101') as shown on the architectural plans, or terraced down to the lowe...

Summary: General Notes 83 and 84 specify that concrete floor slabs on grade and expansive soil can be placed directly on a 4-inch fill of coarse aggregate with a minimum slab thickness of 3-1/2 inches, while being reinforced with #4 rebar in both directions. Pouring concrete directly onto a coarse aggregate base means the slab is cast against and permanently in contact with the ground. According to ACI ...

Why it matters: If a contractor follows these notes and places a 3.5-inch thick slab directly on a gravel fill, it will be impossible to achieve the code-required 3-inch clearance for the bottom reinforcement. This will lead to failed pre-pour inspections and costly delays, or if poured, accelerated corrosion of...

Suggested next step: Please revise Notes 83 and 84 to either increase the minimum slab thickness to at least 4.75 inches to accommodate the 3-inch bottom cover, the rebar grid, and minimum top cover, or mandate an approved moisture barrier/vapor retarder under all reinforced slabs on grade to redu...

RFI draft: Please revise Notes 83 and 84 to either increase the minimum slab thickness to at least 4.75 inches to accommodate the 3-inch bottom cover, the rebar grid, and minimum top cover, or mandate an approved moisture barrier/vapor retarder under all rei...

Summary: General Note 81 dictates that footing reinforcement shall be placed "WITHIN 4 INCHES OF THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOTING". ACI 318-19 Section 20.5.1.3.1 and Table 20.5.1.3.1 require a specified minimum concrete cover of 3 inches for nonprestressed cast-in-place concrete members cast against and permanently in contact with the ground. By prescribing a placement range of "within 4 inches", the drawing e...

Why it matters: Providing a vague placement range that encompasses code-violating dimensions allows contractors to place rebar too close to the soil. If reinforcement is installed with less than 3 inches of cover, it will fail structural inspections and require re-tying and repositioning before concrete placemen...

Suggested next step: Please revise General Note 81 to explicitly specify a minimum of 3 inches of concrete clear cover for the bottom reinforcement in footings cast against the ground, in accordance with ACI 318-19 Table 20.5.1.3.1.

RFI draft: Please revise General Note 81 to explicitly specify a minimum of 3 inches of concrete clear cover for the bottom reinforcement in footings cast against the ground, in accordance with ACI 318-19 Table 20.5.1.3.1.

Summary: The Dark Sky General Notes dictate that all outdoor lighting must be extinguished by 11:00 p.m. and that motion sensor lights must be programmed to extinguish 10 minutes after activation. However, the notes also explicitly identify that exterior walkways are used for "ex.it" (egress). CBC Section 1008.2 requires the means of egress serving a space to be illuminated at all times that the space i...

Why it matters: Continuous illumination of the means of egress is critical for life safety during a nighttime evacuation. Relying on an 11:00 p.m. automatic shutoff or a 10-minute timer could leave occupants navigating exterior exit pathways in the dark during an emergency. This conflict between local Dark Sky o...

Suggested next step: Clarify if exterior lighting serving as the required means of egress from the building to the public way is exempt from the 11:00 p.m. curfew and 10-minute timer requirements. Request approval to keep required egress pathways continuously illuminated while the residence is occ...

RFI draft: Clarify if exterior lighting serving as the required means of egress from the building to the public way is exempt from the 11:00 p.m. curfew and 10-minute timer requirements. Request approval to keep required egress pathways continuously illumina...

Summary: The Timber Construction general notes explicitly direct all nailing to comply with the 2022 California Building Code (CBC 2022) Schedule Table 2304.10.1. However, the project is governed by the 2025 California Building Code, which has updated requirements for wood structural panel sheathing and framing connections (e.g., Table 2304.6.1). Blanketly applying an outdated 2022 code fastening schedu...

Why it matters: Relying on a superseded code table can result in undersized or incorrectly spaced fasteners if the requirements have changed between the 2022 and 2025 code cycles. Building inspectors and plan checkers will reject drawings referencing outdated codes, potentially causing permitting delays or requi...

Suggested next step: Please update the Timber Construction notes to reference the 2025 California Building Code (CBC 2025) fastening schedules, including Table 2304.6.1 for sheathing, and verify all structural fastening details meet the current code requirements.

RFI draft: Please update the Timber Construction notes to reference the 2025 California Building Code (CBC 2025) fastening schedules, including Table 2304.6.1 for sheathing, and verify all structural fastening details meet the current code requirements.

Summary: Building Section 2 indicates that the exterior grade on the left side of the building slopes downwards to the right, directly meeting the exterior concrete footing and foundation wall. Furthermore, Building Section 1 shows the grade on the right side of the building sloping upwards as it transitions away from the structure, indicating it slopes downwards towards the building. This contradicts t...

Why it matters: Improper grading that directs surface water towards the foundation will cause water to pool against the building walls. This increases hydrostatic pressure, poses a significant risk of water intrusion into the subterranean lower levels, and can compromise the structural integrity of the foundation.

Suggested next step: Please revise the building sections and site grading plans to ensure the exterior grade slopes away from the foundation at a minimum 5% slope for at least 10 feet, or detail an approved alternative drainage method (such as a 2% sloped swale) to properly divert water away from ...

RFI draft: Please revise the building sections and site grading plans to ensure the exterior grade slopes away from the foundation at a minimum 5% slope for at least 10 feet, or detail an approved alternative drainage method (such as a 2% sloped swale) to pr...