HomePlan

Phase 3 · Permits and approvals · Step 3.4

Respond to SDCI correction letters (1-3 cycles typical)

Your designer turns SDCI's review comments into revised drawings and a response letter. Each cycle is 4-6 weeks. Most projects clear in 1-3 cycles; substantial-alteration projects can run 2-4.

Who
Designer, Architect, SDCI
How long
4-6 weeks per cycle, 1-3 cycles typical
Cost
Included in design fee; SDCI hourly rate applies if review goes long
You end up with
Issued building permit

What a correction letter looks like

After first review, SDCI sends a single correction letter consolidating comments from each reviewing discipline:

  • Zoning — setbacks, coverage, FAR, departures.
  • Structural — engineer's calc clarifications, beam sizing, retrofit details.
  • Energy — alteration compliance, air-barrier transition, equipment sizing.
  • Substantial alteration — Tip 314 calculation review, conclusion verification.
  • SPU / SCL — utility-impact verification.
  • Tree — preservation plan revisions.

Each comment needs a written response and (usually) a drawing revision.

How long this takes

  • First review: 6–10 weeks after intake.
  • Each correction round: 4–6 weeks (your turnaround + SDCI re-review).
  • Total cycles: 1–3 is typical for an Addition/Alteration with an experienced design team. Substantial-alteration projects often run 2–4 cycles because reviewers and designers go back and forth on the alteration calculation.

How to keep this short

  1. Use a designer with recent SDCI Addition/Alteration permits. Their previous correction letters tell them what current SDCI reviewers ask for.
  2. Turn corrections around fast. SDCI's clock is on them; yours is on you. Two-week turnarounds keep the project moving.
  3. Address every comment, even minor ones. Skipping a comment guarantees it comes back next round.
  4. Settle the substantial-alteration question in round one. If the project is near a Tip 314 threshold, the first submittal should explicitly state the calculated alteration value and the conclusion. Leaving this ambiguous reliably adds a cycle.

When this ends

When the correction letter comes back with no comments, SDCI issues the building permit. You pay the remaining permit fees plus any sub-permit fees still outstanding, and the permit is "issued" — the GC can mobilize.

Go deeper

Optional reading. Skip if you only need the headline.

›How to structure a correction response so the next cycle is shorterThe response-letter format Seattle designers use to close corrections in one round instead of three.

The response letter format

When the reviewer re-opens your project, they read the correction letter and then look for the response. If the response is scattered across email threads or buried in sheet notes, the reviewer re-issues the comment. The file should contain a single correction response letter that mirrors the structure of the SDCI comment letter exactly.

For each numbered comment, include three things in order:

  1. The original comment, verbatim. Don't paraphrase — reviewers look for their own wording first.
  2. The response. One of four stock framings:
    • "Revised — see sheet A2.1, detail 4, revision cloud 3." (Most comments.)
    • "Acknowledged — the condition does not apply because [narrow, specific reason]." (Use sparingly; every one of these is a fight you're choosing.)
    • "Clarification added — see general note on A0.0." (For anything a reviewer flagged as "ambiguous.")
    • "See attached calc / memo from [engineer], dated [date]." (For structural or energy comments that need a discipline response.)
  3. A direct pointer to where the change lives: sheet number, detail number, revision cloud number. Never "see revised drawings" — always the exact location.

Revision clouds and deltas

Every drawing change goes inside a revision cloud, with a delta triangle pointing to the revision number in the title block. The title block revision log should match the response letter's revision number. Reviewers scan for that match first; if the delta doesn't match the response, the comment reopens.

What experienced designers do differently on whole-house remodels

  • They settle the SDCI Tip 314 substantial-alteration question in round one. If the project is near the threshold, the first submittal should explicitly state the calculated alteration value as a percentage of building replacement cost, and the conclusion. Leaving this ambiguous reliably adds a cycle — and on whole-house projects, the calculation is more involved than on a second-story project, so reviewers ask harder questions.
  • They front-load existing-conditions documentation. Reviewers ask for verification of existing wall types, existing foundation, existing electrical service, existing window U-factors. A first submittal with photos and an inspection narrative for each major existing condition heads off a cycle of "please verify."
  • They document the wall-removal logic explicitly. A schedule or table showing each wall to be removed, its bearing status, the proposed beam size, and the load path is the kind of organization reviewers love — it converts a fishing expedition into a checkbox exercise.
  • They pick their fights. One or two pushback comments in the response letter is normal. Five is adversarial and usually costs a cycle.

What to hand the reviewer on resubmittal

  • Revised drawings (full set), with revision clouds and the revision log updated.
  • The correction response letter (PDF).
  • Any new supporting calcs, memos, or product data as separate PDFs (referenced from the response letter by filename).
  • A cover note confirming no scope changes outside the correction comments — reviewers re-scope if they find changes they didn't ask for.

Where this information came from

← Back to project map