Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T20CM03224
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/04/2021 | DAN SANTA CRUZ | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Reqs Change | Please address the following electrical plan review comments and provide a written response. In reference to the previous electrical review comments and responses also revised electrical plans (2nd review), the following discrepancies are noted in this 3rd review comments for the revision. The previous 2nd electrical plan review comment copy is followed by the current 3rd electrical review comment. 2nd Review comment #1, Ref; Plan Sheet E2.0. (Space T9) Detail B. The AC equipment 120volt maintenance receptacle branch circuit shown ckt # K-33 does not correlate with the panel schedule for ‘K’. 3rd Review. As stated above, the detail ‘A’ shows the AC maintenance receptacles designated for Panel ‘K’, branch circuit #33. The panel schedule for panel ‘K’ shows branch circuit #33 assigned to “Timeclock Lights”. Please correlate the correct Panel to the branch circuits. 2nd Review comment #2. Please explain what is meant by the arrow pointing at the AC maintenance receptacles for the other space T9 detail ‘A’, and identify the Panel and circuit designation for the AC feeder and receptacles. Also correlate with the panel schedules. 3rd Review comment, 2nd part of 2nd review comment. The AC feeder (Detail ‘A’) is shown designated to Panel ‘K’ 37,39, 41. Panel ‘K’ schedule indicates otherwise. Please correlate the circuit numbers with the correct Panels. 2nd Review comment #3. The branch circuits shown for the KITCHEN CONTROL BLOCK DIAGRAM do not correlate with the panel schedule, exhaust Fans #2,3, and 4. Please revise as necessary. 3rd Review comment; The Panel schedule for ‘K’ still shows exhaust fans #2,3 and 4 on circuit #32. Please revise. 2nd Review comment #4. In the comment response letter, it was stated that both panels ‘K’ and ‘M’ are new. Plan sheets E2.1, E3.0, E4.0, do not correlate with this statement. Please clarify. 3rd Review comment. Per the current comment response letter response #6, it is now stated that only ‘K’ is new and Panel ‘M’ is existing. Plan sheet E3.0 shows Panel ‘K’ with an (E) next to it. Also it appears Panel ‘M’ is shown at 2 locations both plan sheets E3.0 and E3.1. Please clarify. After some clarification of Panels ‘K’ and ‘M’. Examination of the single line diagram for the Pull Box ‘PT9’ is unclear (Line Diagrams). The existing service labeled as ‘MSB’ shows feeders #1 encircled, and has an OCPD rated at 800 amps. Plan sheet E4.0 shows Panel ‘M’ and ‘K’ both terminated in Pull Box ‘PT9’ on 800 amp lugs, however, (per the bussing schedule on plan E5 the Pull Box has 400 amp bussing. … Terminating a 800 amp feeder to 400 amp bussing does not meet code. Please clarify. Plan sheet E4.0; What does the #1 in the diamond symbol with the cloud around it designate? Indicate the conduit and feeder sizes between the Pull Box ‘PT9’ and the 400 amp disconnect switch. Plan Sheet E5.0; Indicate conduit, conductor sizes and types for the new feeders shown in the line diagram. Due to the nature of these listed discrepancies and previous review comments, the subsequent review may generate additional comments. Ref; 2018 IBC section 107.1.2, 2017 NEC, City of Tucson Commercial Plan Submittal Requirements |