Respond to every numbered comment in writing, in the order the jurisdiction issued it: quote the comment, state the action taken or the reason no change is needed, and point to the sheet, detail, or note where the reviewer can see it. Cloud the revisions, add a delta, and resubmit the complete set with the response letter. Then check the sheets the change touched but the comment did not mention.
What the plans examiner needs from a response
Reviewers work from the response letter, not from a side-by-side comparison of two plan sets. Jurisdictions say this in their own instructions. Seattle asks applicants to consolidate every designer's responses onto one summary and to cloud or circle all changes, and states that it will not review individual sheets that only respond to the requested corrections (Seattle SDCI, How to Respond to Review Comments). Alameda requires a written response to each comment indicating where and how each item has been addressed, and does not accept resubmittals without written responses (City of Alameda handout).
The pattern is the same almost everywhere: one written response per comment, a pointer to the exact location of the change, clouded and numbered revisions, and a complete set. The details differ by jurisdiction, so read the correction letter's own instructions and the department's resubmittal page before you start.
Six kinds of response, and what each needs
Most comments fall into one of six responses. The table gives the wording that satisfies a reviewer and the evidence to attach. The downloadable log has a column for each.
| Response type | What to write | What to cloud or attach |
|---|---|---|
| Revised as requested | State the change and its location: "Corridor doors revised to 20-minute rated assemblies; see door schedule A6.01, types D3 and D4, and wall type W2 on A0.02." | Cloud the schedule rows, the plan tags, and any detail that changed; add the delta |
| Revised, but differently | Explain the alternative and why it meets the requirement, with the section cited by the reviewer | Cloud the change; attach calculations, product data, or a code excerpt if the reviewer will need it |
| No change, with justification | Explain why the existing design complies, citing the code section, an exception, or the sheet the reviewer may have missed | No cloud; reference the sheet and note the reviewer should read |
| Clarification only | Add or revise a note, keynote, or dimension so the intent is explicit | Cloud the note; reference its sheet |
| Deferred or separate submittal | State that the item is a deferred submittal or belongs to another permit, and where the jurisdiction allows that | Cloud the deferred-submittal list on the cover sheet if it changed |
| Voluntary change | Describe any change you made that no comment asked for, so the reviewer is not surprised by it | Cloud it and list it at the end of the response letter |
"Done", "Corrected", and "See revised plans" are the responses reviewers reject most often, because they force a search of the whole set. Every response should name a sheet.
Write the response letter
Head the letter with the permit or application number, the project address, the review cycle, and the date of the correction letter you are answering. Then list every comment in the reviewer's numbering, grouped by department when more than one department commented: building, fire, planning, public works, and any outside agency. Each entry has the comment quoted verbatim, then your response.
Keep one voice. When the architect, structural engineer, and MEP engineers each answer their own comments, collect the answers into one letter or one consolidated markup before submitting. A comment answered by nobody is the usual reason a package comes back for another cycle.
If you disagree with a comment, say so respectfully and specifically: quote the section, the exception, or the sheet that supports the existing design, and offer to discuss it. A justified "no change" is a legitimate response; silence is not.
Mark the drawings so the change can be found
Cloud or circle every revision and give it a delta number that appears in the title block of each affected sheet. Where the jurisdiction asks for it, upload both a marked-up response set and a clean revised set as single PDFs, complete, in the original sheet order. Do not submit an unmarked new set and do not submit only the sheets that changed unless the department's instructions say a partial set is acceptable.
Add sheets rather than replacing content silently. If a comment needs a new detail, give it a number, reference it from the plan, and add it to the sheet index. If a sheet is deleted, say so in the letter and on the index.
Check the sheets the comment did not mention
The recheck cycle that hurts is the one caused by your own response. A door rating changed on the schedule but not on the plan tag or the wall type. A relocated shaft on the architectural plan with no matching opening on the structural sheet. An equipment change on the mechanical schedule that the electrical panel schedule never saw. Two of Groundbook AI's published findings are exactly this shape: a door schedule that disagreed with the plan location and the separation requirement, and plans, schedules, and controls carrying different equipment data.
Before resubmitting, trace each revision to its dependents: plan, section, schedule, detail, specification, and the other discipline's sheet. The response log has a column for the dependent documents you checked. For a large set, run the revised package through a pre-permit review so the cross-sheet questions surface before the examiner finds them; the revised drawing set guide covers the backcheck in detail.
A worked response
Comment 14 (Building): "Corridor doors in Type B units shall be rated per CBC Section 1020.2 and Table 716.1(2). Provide rated assemblies and show ratings on the door schedule."
Response 14: Revised as requested. Door types D3 and D4 at Type B unit entries revised to 20-minute rated assemblies with self-closing hardware; door schedule on A6.01 updated (rows 204 through 231, clouded, Delta 2). Corridor wall type W2 on A0.02 confirmed as a 1-hour assembly; no change. Hardware set 04 revised in Section 08 71 00, page 6 (clouded). Plan tags on A2.02 and A2.03 unchanged.
The response names the change, the sheets, the delta, the specification section, and the sheets checked and left alone. The reviewer can verify it in under a minute.