Shrub and ground cover beds rely on a ficus that the local landscape code lists as prohibited.
The planting plans and plant schedule set out the trees, buffers and shrubs the site needs for approval, and several fall short of the local landscape code or disagree with each other.
Mixed-use landscape planting plans
Landscape planting plans for a mixed-use development with commercial and residential buildings, perimeter buffers, a planted littoral shelf and dry detention: code calculations, plant schedules, planting plans and specifications.
What the review compared
The review read the landscape planting plans for a mixed-use development with their plant schedules, code calculations, buffer tables and specifications. Code checking was enabled, so species, tree counts, buffer widths, plant sizes and clearances were read against the local landscape code the review cited.
Where the planting falls short of the code
The schedule relies on a prohibited ficus, the general tree count deducts a new lake the code does not exclude, and the littoral shelf has too few native species. A buffer is labeled narrower than its type, some required trees are below the caliper minimum, and several trees stand too close to light poles. Two grass quantities and the mulch specification also disagree with the plans and the schedule.
What to verify next
The landscape architect should settle the species, tree counts, buffer widths and plant sizes against the local landscape code, then reconcile the plant schedule with the plan labels and specification before submittal. Examples that cite a requirement follow the codes the review cited, and every example is a question for the responsible designers.
8 selected examples from the review
Eight distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Scheduled ficus is prohibited
The schedule plants a ficus in shrub and ground cover beds; the code prohibits its species.
Why it matters: Reviewers can require substitutes, changing the plant order and bid.
What to check: Substitute a permitted species, or obtain written acceptance.
LandscapeTree count deducts a new lake
The calculation subtracts a new lake from the site area; the code excludes only existing waterbodies.
Why it matters: The plans provide fewer general trees than required.
What to check: Recompute from the full area and add the trees.
LandscapeLittoral shelf has too few species
The littoral planting uses three species; the code requires at least four native herbaceous species.
Why it matters: Its plant count also falls short of the calculation.
What to check: Add a native species and raise the count.
LandscapeBuffer is labeled too narrow
Buffer notes give the buffer beside single-family lots its code width; plans label it narrower.
Why it matters: Reviewers see a buffer below the set’s own minimum.
What to check: Dimension the buffer to its inner edge, or widen it.
LandscapeRequired trees below caliper minimum
Japanese blueberry trees counted as required trees are scheduled below the code’s minimum caliper.
Why it matters: Trees bought to the schedule would not qualify.
What to check: Raise the caliper, or stop counting these trees.
LandscapeTrees and a palm crowd light poles
Several trees and one palm stand closer to light poles than the code’s clearances allow.
Why it matters: The trees, the palm or the poles must move.
What to check: Move them to the required distances, or plant shrubs.
LandscapeGrass quantities over double the plan labels
The schedule counts over twice the muhly grass and sand cordgrass the plan labels total.
Why it matters: Bids differ by thousands of plants, and density is unclear.
What to check: Set the bed spacing, then reconcile both.
LandscapeMulch specification contradicts the schedule
The specification calls for pine straw in all beds; the schedule lists mostly eucalyptus mulch.
Why it matters: Bidders can price different mulch for the same beds.
What to check: Make the specification match the schedule, or change it.
LandscapeReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Landscape and Accessibility
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
Medium priorities
Selected examples retain their assigned priority.
Drawing coordination and code checking
Code checking was enabled alongside the review of plans, schedules, details, and notes.
Findings connected to their source context
Groundbook links each finding to the sheets it came from so the responsible designer can confirm or dismiss it.
Potential impacts describe the issue type. They are not verified outcomes from this project.
Follow the information across the complete set
Groundbook reads the documents you upload and reports where they disagree, where a reference does not resolve, and where a required value is absent.
See how a full set is reviewed or how interfaces are coordinated.
- 1Map the complete set
Identify sheets, disciplines, details, schedules, and notes.
- 2Connect repeated information
Follow tags, references, and requirements wherever they reappear.
- 3Check drawings and code references
Read the detected code references alongside the drawing evidence.
- 4Return findings for verification
Organize potential issues by severity, discipline, and supporting context.
Questions for professional verification
The output supports the responsible designers as they review the source documents and decide what needs to change.
What this result means
- Groundbook surfaced potential issues for professional review.
- Severity helps prioritize which questions to investigate.
- The findings describe coordination, completeness, and code-reference questions in the uploaded set.
- Each finding includes source context for verification.
What it does not mean
- Every potential finding is a confirmed error or violation.
- The project was unsafe, unbuildable, or ultimately noncompliant.
- Groundbook replaced the responsible professionals or authority.
- A correction was made, or any cost or delay was avoided.
About this review
Is this a real review?
Based on a Groundbook review completed in November 2026. Findings are summarized.
Are these findings confirmed defects?
No. Each one is a potential issue for the responsible designer to verify against the source documents. Groundbook reports what the documents say and where they disagree. It does not make design decisions, certify compliance, or replace the authority having jurisdiction.
How long did the review take?
Turnaround runs from 20 minutes to 24 hours depending on project size.
Which codes were checked?
Code checking was enabled for this review. Groundbook detects the codes a set references, reads the codes and amendments that governments publish online, and uses licensed codes only where a license allows it.
Can I see a full report?
Yes. The sample plan review report shows all 79 findings from one review of a drawing set and its specifications, with the cited excerpts.
Continue from the case study
Explore the source-linked examples in the sample plan review report, or browse every published case study.
Give the next drawing set a connected first pass
Upload the project, choose the checks that matter, and receive structured potential findings with source context.