Electrical Equipment Plan Review: 78 Issues Found

Summary: 233 index entries | 173 perfect matches | 31 mismatched | 29 missing Mismatched (31): E208: Expected: Electrical Roof Plan - 1416 Henriette/Kerlerec | Actual: Electrical Roof Plan - 1416 Henriette/Kerlerec (p187) E002: Expected: Electrical Details | Actual: Electrical Details (p171) E103: Expected: Electrical Lighting Plan...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 G001 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 1 --- 📄 S1 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 99

Summary: The drawing notes indicate a 4-story apartment building. The Code Data sheet identifies the occupancy as Residential Group R-2 (apartments), the construction classification as New Construction – Type VB, and a fully automatic sprinkler system per NFPA 13 (Ref 1 and Ref 3). The referenced IBC Table 504.4 excerpt indicates that for Group R-2 with...

Why it matters: This discrepancy suggests either the building’s construction type/story count must change, or an alternative compliant code path must be documented. If not resolved, it can lead to plan review comments, permit delays, and potential redesign. Additionally, the Code Data sheet header shown indicates use of the 2021 IBC (with Louisiana...

Suggested next step: Confirm the governing code edition used for permitting, the intended construction type for the 4-story building (Type V-B vs any other classification), and the sprinkler standard applicable to that building (NFPA 13 per 903.3.1.1). Provide the compliant path and updated height/story calculations demonstrating conformance with the applicable IBC...

RFI draft: Confirm the governing code edition used for permitting, the intended construction type for the 4-story building (Type V-B vs any other classification), and the sprinkler standard applicable to that building (NFPA 13 per 903.3.1.1). Provide the compliant path and updated height/story calculations...

Summary: The drawings state that all sensor-controlled lighting will be turned off after 20 minutes of vacancy. The Level 2 lighting plan shows occupancy sensors ('OS') located in the corridor serving dwelling units. This control sequence allows the corridor/egress lighting to be OFF while the dwelling units it serves remain occupied, which conflicts...

Why it matters: This is a life-safety compliance issue that is likely to be rejected during plan review/inspection and would require reprogramming controls and/or adding required unswitched/night/egress lighting circuits, causing schedule delays and rework costs.

Suggested next step: Revise/confirm the control sequence for all means-of-egress lighting (including corridors and stairs) so it remains illuminated whenever the rooms/spaces served are occupied, and confirm the design maintains the required minimum illumination at the walking surface per IBC 1008.2.1 while required to be illuminated.

RFI draft: Revise/confirm the control sequence for all means-of-egress lighting (including corridors and stairs) so it remains illuminated whenever the rooms/spaces served are occupied, and confirm the design maintains the required minimum illumination at the walking surface per IBC 1008.2.1 while required...

Summary: The general lighting control note requires all sensor-controlled lighting to be turned OFF after 20 minutes of vacancy (unless noted otherwise). The Level 4 lighting plan shows occupancy sensors ('OS') located in common circulation/egress areas (the corridor and both stairwells) serving multiple dwelling units. The stairwell note specifically...

Why it matters: This is a life-safety code compliance issue and is likely to be rejected during plan review, and could lead to field corrections (reprogramming controls, adding night/occupied-mode lighting, or changing control strategy) if discovered after installation.

Suggested next step: Revise/clarify the lighting control sequence for all means-of-egress components (e.g., corridors and stairwells) so that required egress illumination is provided at all times the areas served are occupied. Specifically clarify that corridor egress lighting will not go fully OFF during occupied periods for the spaces served, and confirm the...

RFI draft: Revise/clarify the lighting control sequence for all means-of-egress components (e.g., corridors and stairwells) so that required egress illumination is provided at all times the areas served are occupied. Specifically clarify that corridor egress lighting will not go fully OFF during occupied...

Summary: On this sheet, General Note 1 states that hearing impaired/visual aid devices and doorbells are only to be installed in units 107, 205, and 301. However, the specification symbol schedule requires the visual aid notifier (V) and doorbell (DB) provisions in all Hearing Impaired/ADA units, not only the hearing impaired unit numbers listed in the...

Why it matters: If the contractor follows the sheet General Note, required visual notification/doorbell provisions may be omitted in ADA units, creating life-safety/accessibility compliance risk and potential inspection failure and rework.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether 'FIRE ALARM VISUAL AID NOTIFIER' and 'DOORBELL; PROVIDE WITH VISUAL INDICATOR' are required in all ADA units as listed on this sheet, in addition to units 107/205/301. If yes, revise E501 General Note 1 accordingly (or clarify the intended definition of 'HEARING IMPAIRED/VISUAL AID DEVICES').

RFI draft: Please confirm whether 'FIRE ALARM VISUAL AID NOTIFIER' and 'DOORBELL; PROVIDE WITH VISUAL INDICATOR' are required in all ADA units as listed on this sheet, in addition to units 107/205/301. If yes, revise E501 General Note 1 accordingly (or clarify the intended definition of 'HEARING...

Summary: The erosion control/site plan explicitly notes that a manhole is “completely obstructed.” The IBC prohibits placing construction materials or other obstructions so as to obstruct access/free approach to manholes during construction activities.

Why it matters: If the manhole remains obstructed, utility agency access, inspections, and emergency maintenance can be prevented, requiring field rework/removal of obstructions and potentially causing project delays and cost impacts.

Suggested next step: Confirm what is obstructing the referenced manhole and revise the site/construction controls (fencing, access, material staging, etc.) so that access/free approach to the manhole is maintained in compliance with IBC 3308.1.1 and 3308.2.

RFI draft: Confirm what is obstructing the referenced manhole and revise the site/construction controls (fencing, access, material staging, etc.) so that access/free approach to the manhole is maintained in compliance with IBC 3308.1.1 and 3308.2.

Summary: This sheet includes a disclaimer stating the drawings are not to be used for construction. However, IBC requires that construction documents provide the information pertinent to the structural design (including design loads and other required items) on the construction documents themselves. A drawing sheet included in the construction/permit...

Why it matters: If this sheet is relied upon in the field, the contractor lacks code-compliant construction direction and the AHJ may reject the sheet as part of the approved construction documents, leading to permit delays, redesign, and installation RFIs/change orders for this structure.

Suggested next step: Provide an engineer-of-record-approved (and where required, sealed) site-specific construction detail for this structure that is intended for construction use (remove/replace the “reference only” disclaimer for the issued-for-construction detail), or remove this sheet from the permit/construction set and replace it with compliant construction...

RFI draft: Provide an engineer-of-record-approved (and where required, sealed) site-specific construction detail for this structure that is intended for construction use (remove/replace the “reference only” disclaimer for the issued-for-construction detail), or remove this sheet from the...

Summary: The Code Data sheet states dwelling-unit separation walls are “0.5 hr (Section 708.3, Exc. 2)” while also stating portions of the project will be sprinklered under NFPA 13R (IBC 903.3.1.2). Under the 2018 IBC, Section 708.3 requires fire partitions to be 1 hour unless an exception applies; Exception 2 allowing 1/2-hour dwelling-unit separations...

Why it matters: If the design proceeds with NFPA 13R in those buildings, dwelling-unit separation assemblies would need to be upgraded from 1/2-hour to 1-hour (or the sprinkler system upgraded to NFPA 13) to meet IBC fire-resistance requirements. This discrepancy can trigger plan review comments, assembly redesign, and material/labor cost impacts during...

Suggested next step: Confirm which buildings/areas are protected by NFPA 13R vs. NFPA 13, and revise the rated wall requirements accordingly: either (a) provide 1-hour dwelling-unit separation fire partitions where NFPA 13R is used, or (b) change those buildings to an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with IBC 903.3.1.1 to use the 1/2-hour allowance in IBC...

RFI draft: Confirm which buildings/areas are protected by NFPA 13R vs. NFPA 13, and revise the rated wall requirements accordingly: either (a) provide 1-hour dwelling-unit separation fire partitions where NFPA 13R is used, or (b) change those buildings to an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with...

Summary: On sheet A001, the accessibility legend and project accessibility data explicitly reference ADA accessibility standards (ADAAG and 2010 ADAS) for accessible unit requirements (e.g., 'ADAAG SYMBOL NOTES' and '2010 ADAS Accessibility Data'). However, IBC Section 1102.1 requires buildings and facilities to be designed and constructed to be...

Why it matters: Plan review and inspections are typically performed against the adopted IBC and its referenced accessibility standard (ICC A117.1). If the drawings direct compliance to ADAAG/2010 ADAS instead (or do not clearly state ICC A117.1 as the governing technical standard for IBC compliance), the AHJ may require revisions/clarifications and potentially...

Suggested next step: Revise the accessibility notes/legend and accessibility basis-of-design on A001 to clearly state compliance with IBC Chapter 11 and ICC A117.1 (per IBC 1102.1). If ADA/2010 ADAS criteria are also intended to be met, clarify that the design will comply with both and identify which standard governs where they differ.

RFI draft: Revise the accessibility notes/legend and accessibility basis-of-design on A001 to clearly state compliance with IBC Chapter 11 and ICC A117.1 (per IBC 1102.1). If ADA/2010 ADAS criteria are also intended to be met, clarify that the design will comply with both and identify which standard...

Summary: The Life Safety Plan identifies the fitness space as an Assembly occupancy even though the stated occupant load is 13. Under IBC 2018 Section 303.1.1, an assembly tenant space with an occupant load of less than 50 persons must be classified as Group B, not Group A. This is a direct occupancy classification error on the life safety drawings.

Why it matters: Incorrect occupancy classification can drive incorrect mixed-occupancy approach, required fire-resistance separations, allowable area/height analysis, and life-safety system thresholds, which can result in plan review comments, redesign, and construction delays.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the “Assembly (Fitness)” area is intended to be a tenant space/room with occupant load 13. If so, revise the occupancy classification on the Life Safety Plan and update the code summary/occupant load tables to classify this space as Group B per IBC 303.1.1 (or provide a code-based justification for keeping it as Group A).

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the “Assembly (Fitness)” area is intended to be a tenant space/room with occupant load 13. If so, revise the occupancy classification on the Life Safety Plan and update the code summary/occupant load tables to classify this space as Group B per IBC 303.1.1 (or provide a...

Summary: In the trash chute section, one face of the chute/shaft is explicitly labeled “CORRIDOR SIDE,” and a trash chute access door is called out at the shaft (“BOTTOM HINGED CHUTE DOOR BY MANF. TYP.”). This indicates a chute opening on the corridor side. IBC requires that openings into chutes not be located in corridors.

Why it matters: If the chute intake doors are located in a corridor, this is a direct life-safety/code compliance issue that will likely require redesign (e.g., providing dedicated chute access rooms/compartments) and could trigger permitting comments and construction rework of corridor/partition layouts around the chute.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the “BOTTOM HINGED CHUTE DOOR” openings are located within a dedicated chute access room/compartment (not within a corridor). If they are currently intended to be in the corridor, revise the design to relocate the chute openings out of the corridor in accordance with IBC 713.13.1 and provide the required rated access...

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the “BOTTOM HINGED CHUTE DOOR” openings are located within a dedicated chute access room/compartment (not within a corridor). If they are currently intended to be in the corridor, revise the design to relocate the chute openings out of the corridor in accordance with IBC...

Summary: The sheet’s storefront notes state that interior storefront openings in fire-rated walls can be protected by “WATER CURTAIN SPRINKLER HEADS” as an alternative to providing a rated assembly. IBC Section 716 governs required opening protectives and ties fire protection ratings to NFPA/UL fire test criteria; it also indicates fire window...

Why it matters: If interior storefronts in fire-resistance-rated walls are constructed per this note using only sprinkler water curtains, the design is likely to be rejected during plan review/inspection, and could require costly replacement of storefront framing/glazing and associated sprinkler redesign, delaying certificate of occupancy.

Suggested next step: Revise/clarify the “INTERIOR STOREFRONTS” note to require an IBC 716-compliant, listed and labeled rated storefront/fire-resistance-rated glazing assembly (identify required rating and listing) where installed in fire-resistance-rated walls. If a sprinkler water-curtain approach is intended as an alternate method, provide the specific code...

RFI draft: Revise/clarify the “INTERIOR STOREFRONTS” note to require an IBC 716-compliant, listed and labeled rated storefront/fire-resistance-rated glazing assembly (identify required rating and listing) where installed in fire-resistance-rated walls. If a sprinkler water-curtain approach is intended as...

Summary: The structural general notes state that when reinforcing cover is not shown, cover shall conform to “ACI 318-95 Section 7.7.” However, the same General Notes sheet lists the concrete code as “ACI 318-19,” and the referenced building code requirement indicates structural concrete must comply with ACI 318 (as amended by IBC Section 1905)....

Why it matters: This mismatch can lead to detailing/inspection using the wrong reinforcing cover requirements, potentially causing plan review comments and/or field corrections if the AHJ enforces compliance with the code-referenced ACI 318 edition.

Suggested next step: Revise the general notes to remove the reference to “ACI 318-95 Section 7.7” and instead reference the ACI 318 edition applicable to this project (consistent with the listed “ACI 318-19” and IBC Section 1905 amendments), and confirm/republish the required concrete cover criteria accordingly.

RFI draft: Revise the general notes to remove the reference to “ACI 318-95 Section 7.7” and instead reference the ACI 318 edition applicable to this project (consistent with the listed “ACI 318-19” and IBC Section 1905 amendments), and confirm/republish the required concrete cover criteria accordingly.

Summary: On Sheet S1.1 under POST INSTALLED ANCHOR NOTES (III.A.1), the drawings specify “HILTI HIT-HY 70 MASONRY ADHESIVE ANCHORING SYSTEM (ICC PENDING)” for anchorage to solid grouted masonry. The note does not provide a current evaluation/report reference (e.g., an ICC-ES ESR number) for this product/use, and the “ICC PENDING” notation indicates that...

Why it matters: If the anchoring product’s acceptance documentation is not available at submittal/inspection, the building official may require additional supporting data or a product substitution, which can cause re-submittals, procurement delays, and field installation impacts.

Suggested next step: Provide an approved evaluation report (e.g., current ICC-ES ESR) or other building-official-acceptable approval documentation for “HILTI HIT-HY 70 MASONRY ADHESIVE ANCHORING SYSTEM” for the intended use, or revise the notes to specify only products with current code-acceptable approvals for the required installation conditions (including...

RFI draft: Provide an approved evaluation report (e.g., current ICC-ES ESR) or other building-official-acceptable approval documentation for “HILTI HIT-HY 70 MASONRY ADHESIVE ANCHORING SYSTEM” for the intended use, or revise the notes to specify only products with current code-acceptable approvals for the...

Summary: The foundation plan includes an instruction to place footings within the property boundary but to cantilever the foundation stem wall into the public right-of-way (R.O.W.). A stem wall is a structural support element of the building, and projecting it into the public right-of-way indicates projection beyond the lot line.

Why it matters: This is a code-prohibited encroachment condition and is likely to be rejected during plan review or require redesign (or a different, code-compliant foundation configuration) to keep structural support elements within the lot line, causing permitting delays and construction impacts if discovered after layout/excavation.

Suggested next step: Revise the foundation design so structural support elements (including stem walls) do not project beyond the lot line into the public right-of-way, or provide a revised detail demonstrating compliance with IBC 3202.1.1 (only the specific below-grade footing projection exception, where applicable).

RFI draft: Revise the foundation design so structural support elements (including stem walls) do not project beyond the lot line into the public right-of-way, or provide a revised detail demonstrating compliance with IBC 3202.1.1 (only the specific below-grade footing projection exception, where applicable).