How to respond to a plan check comment letter, with examples

A plan check comment letter is answered comment by comment: you repeat each comment, write what you did about it, and name the sheet or document where the plan checker can see the change. That is the whole format. The work is in getting each answer right, and in knowing which comments you must fix and which you can push back on.

This guide walks through the letter, the response, and five examples of comment and answer pairs.

What is a plan check comment letter?

A comment letter is the list of corrections a plan checker sends back after reviewing your permit drawings. Each numbered comment says what is missing or wrong, cites the code section behind it, and asks for a change or a clarification. Your city may call it a correction letter, a correction notice, plan review comments, or a plan check letter. Same document.

Letters usually arrive grouped by discipline: Building or Architectural, Structural, Accessibility, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Energy, Green Building, Fire, and sometimes Planning or Public Works. Each group is written by a different reviewer, which is why the tone and the level of detail change from section to section.

How do I read the letter before I answer it?

Read it twice before you change anything.

1. Separate the comments from the context. The list of reviewed documents, the project data block (occupancy group, construction type, sprinklers, area of work), and the resubmittal instructions are not comments. They tell you what the reviewer looked at and how to send the response back.
2. Keep the letter's numbering. If the letter says A1 through A8 and S1 through S3, your response uses A1 through A8 and S1 through S3. Reviewers check responses against their own list; renumbering makes them hunt.
3. Sort each comment into one of four buckets. A real deficiency you must fix. Something your drawings already show, which you point to. Something the reviewer got wrong, which you explain. Something you cannot tell yet, which needs a question. The next guide covers how to tell them apart.
4. Assign owners. Structural comments go to the engineer, Title 24 comments to the energy consultant, paperwork to whoever holds the forms. Most letters split three or four ways.

What does a good response look like?

A good response has three parts, in this order: the comment repeated word for word, your response, and the location of the evidence.

Comment A3. Provide the occupant load calculation for the assembly area on Sheet A-1.1.

Response. The occupant load calculation has been added to the code summary on Sheet G-002. The assembly area is 1,840 square feet at 15 square feet net per occupant, for an occupant load of 123. Sheet A-1.1 now references the summary.

See: Sheet G-002, Code Summary; Sheet A-1.1, keynote 4.

Three habits make responses easy to approve:

• Say what changed, not that it changed. "Revised per comment" forces the reviewer to find the change. "The door was widened to 36 inches" does not.
• Point to a sheet and a detail. Every response ends with a place the reviewer can look: a sheet number, a detail number, a page in the calculations, an attachment.
• Match the reviewer's vocabulary. If the comment says "turning space," write "turning space," not "wheelchair circle." The reviewer is scanning for the words they used.

Five example comments and responses

These are composites of real comments on California projects. Section numbers refer to the California Building Code (CBC), the California Residential Code (CRC), and the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). Check them against the edition your city has adopted before you reuse them.

Example 1. Egress width, a real deficiency

Comment A2. Sheet G002: provide egress width calculations for Stairs 1 and 2 per CBC 1005.3.

Response. An egress table has been added to the life-safety plan on Sheet G002. Stair 1 serves an occupant load of 142. At 0.3 inch per occupant (CBC 1005.3.1), 42.6 inches are required; 48 inches clear are provided. Stair 2 serves 96 occupants: 28.8 inches required, 44 inches provided. Both stairs also meet the 44-inch minimum width of CBC 1011.2.

See: Sheet G002, Egress Table; Sheets A-2.1 and A-2.2, stair plans.

The comment asked for a calculation that was not on the drawings. The response supplies it, shows the arithmetic, and names where it now lives.

Example 2. A missing detail, structural

Comment S1. Provide a beam-to-beam connection detail at the cantilever on Sheet S-2.1.

Response. Detail 7 has been added on Sheet S-5.1 and is referenced on S-2.1 at grid C-4. The connection is a bolted knife plate designed for the reactions in the revised calculations, pages 41 through 43, which are attached.

See: Sheet S-5.1, Detail 7; Sheet S-2.1, grid C-4; structural calculations pages 41–43.

Structural comments are almost always answered by the engineer of record, and the response should come with the revised calculation pages, stamped.

Example 3. Accessibility, fixed by a small plan change

Comment D3. Coat room 01510: show a 60-inch turning space per CBC 11B-304.

Response. Sheet A-2.1 has been revised. The coat room casework was shortened by 8 inches and a 60-inch diameter turning space is now dimensioned on the enlarged plan, Detail 3 on Sheet A-2.1, per CBC 11B-304.3.1.

See: Sheet A-2.1, Detail 3.

Accessibility comments often look bigger than they are. Here the fix was eight inches of casework and one dimension.

Example 4. Paperwork, not a drawing change

Comment G1. Provide a construction and demolition waste management plan per CALGreen 4.408.

Response. The city's waste management plan form has been completed and is attached as Attachment 2. The diversion target and hauler are also listed under Green Building Notes on Sheet G-001.

See: Attachment 2; Sheet G-001, Green Building Notes.

Some comments are satisfied by a form, a letter, or a report, not by a revision to the drawings. Knowing which is which lets the owner handle the paperwork while the designer handles the sheets.

Example 5. A respectful pushback

Comment F2. Provide an automatic fire sprinkler system for the detached accessory dwelling unit per CRC R313.

Response. We respectfully request reconsideration. The primary dwelling is an existing single-family residence that is not equipped with fire sprinklers and is not being altered by this permit. State accessory dwelling unit law provides that fire sprinklers shall not be required for an ADU when they are not required for the primary residence. No change has been made to the drawings. If the city applies a local requirement here, please cite it and we will comply.

See: Sheet A-0.1, project description; no revision.

A pushback names the rule you are relying on, explains why it applies to this project, and leaves the reviewer a clean way to agree. It never argues with the reviewer's competence.

What happens after I send the response?

The city runs a second review, usually shorter than the first. A second-round letter often repeats a few comments with "comment remains outstanding," which almost always means the reviewer could not find your change. The cure is the same as before: a response that names the sheet and the detail. Most projects close in two or three rounds.

How commentletter.com fits in

The commentletter.com report does the first pass of everything above. Upload the letter and your drawings; it extracts every comment in the letter's own numbering, drafts a response for each one, checks the cited section against your city's adopted code, marks each comment as a real deficiency, already satisfied, a likely reviewer error, or unverifiable, and lists the concrete steps and sheets. The first page is free to read. When your letter is a Word file, the export writes the responses back into it, under each comment, in the letter's own formatting.