Review Item. Provide itemized comments that may arise from the review. Comments may include advisory comments that identify concerns regarding document legibility, clarity of intent, unreferenced details, incorrect detail call outs, missing or inconsistent references, missing sheets, references to projects or parties not involved in this project, etc.
Review Item. The target of the review is complete project construction documents including: plans, specifications, engineering calculations, energy calculations, and supporting campus-supplied documents including: soils investigation reports and parcel maps, provided to you for review. Documents may be provided in electronic or print form.
Review Item. Use of non-current code editions must be approved in writing by the CSU Building Official.
Review Item. Examine the project construction documents and supporting information supplied for their general state of completeness and internal consistency. The construction documents presented for review need to be complete and construction ready, save stamping. Identify submittals not meeting this standard via comment as incomplete.
Review Item. Identify deferred submittals and unresolved issues (if any) as a part of the Recommendation of Approval letter.
Review Item. Deferred submittals likely to contain accessibility elements (i.e., elevators) are allowed so long as plans are sufficiently detailed to reasonably confirm access compliance.
Review Item. The campus may authorize Phased Project Permit review approach for construction (i.e., demo, foundations, structural frame, etc.). The phased permit approach needs to be identified on the Architectural set at the onset of the review. When this method is employed the plan review will be broken into discrete component parts. Review Item: Phased review divisions of work increments have been agreed to between the CSU and Office of State Fire Marshal. Phases may be combined, but may not be divided further than indicated below. Rider B-2 Preliminary SFM Review An early schematic phase advisory review with SFM. Rider B-2 Code Analysis A SFM required distinct phase Rider B-1 Demo Site Mobilization Can be combined with Site Grading and Utilities. Rider B-1 Site Grading and Site Utilities Phases may be combined, but not further split. Rider B-1 Foundations Needs only a plan outline and systems description. Rider B-1 Structural Frame Defines the complete structural components of the foundation and structural system. Rider B-1 All other work in one combined package All other work. Cannot be phased further. Details of the composition of each package are described more fully online (CPDC A/E).
Review Item. Incremental Permit submittals shall be complete stand-alone packages with plans, specifications and supporting calculations present. Foundation plans for SFM purposes needs only a plan outline and systems description.
Review Item. Provide a structural code review evaluating both gravity and seismic elements for code compliance.
Review Item. The CSU has developed campus-specific geotechnical values. The CSU publishes and updates these values in table form in Attachment B of the CSU Seismic Requirements document available online. Review Item: Use these campus-specific geotechnical values in lieu of the more generalized site values identified in the building code. You may identify that these values were relied upon in your review. The CSU performs a separate independent technical peer review of the seismic aspects of construction projects for conformance to good seismic restraint practices. This peer review process will have been occurring from the start of design on the project. A Construction Document phase peer review will be occurring concurrently, but separately, with this plan check review.
