British Columbia Commercial Campus: 100 Issues Found

Summary: 111 indexed pages | 70 match | 37 minor mismatch | 4 mismatch | 0 missing Minor Mismatch (37): A.1.05: Expected: Building 5. Level 01 (A.1.05) | Actual: B5-LEVEL 01 (A.1.05)(p12) | Reason: Same sheet number; title is an abbreviated variant of Building 5 Level 01. A.1.06: Expected: Building 5. Level 02 (A.1.06) | Actual:...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 A.0.00 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 1

Summary: 33 indexed pages | 30 match | 3 minor mismatch | 0 mismatch | 0 missing Minor Mismatch (3): S2.02: Expected: FOUNDATION / PARKING LEVEL PLAN - MIDDLE QUADRANT (BUILDING 5 AND 6) (S2.02) | Actual: FOUNDATION/PARKING LEVEL PLAN MIDDLE QUADRANT (BUILDING 5) (S2.02)(p14) | Reason: Sheet number matches, but the parsed title omits...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 S1.01 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 1

Summary: 40 indexed pages | 15 match | 25 minor mismatch | 0 mismatch | 0 missing Minor Mismatch (25): E-102: Expected: LUMINAIRE, FA, PANEL SCHEDULE (E-102) | Actual: LUMINAIRE, FA, PANEL SCHEDULES (E-102)(p4) | Reason: Same sheet number; title differs only by singular vs. plural wording. E-202: Expected: ONE LINE DIAGRAM NOTES...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 E-100 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 1 --- 📄 E-702 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 29

Summary: 43 indexed pages | 33 match | 10 minor mismatch | 0 mismatch | 0 missing Minor Mismatch (10): M208: Expected: ROOF PLUBING PLAN (M208) | Actual: ROOF PLUMBING PLAN (M208)(p12) | Reason: Sheet number matches; the index title has a minor OCR/spelling error in 'PLUBING'. M501A: Expected: SANTIARY RISER DIAGRAM I (M501A) | ...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 M100 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 1

Summary: The structural Level 1 hold-down plan identifies the southeast portion of the floor as 'OPEN TO BELOW', while the mechanical Level 1 plans place tenant spaces 'CRU-1', 'CRU-2', and 'CRU-3' in that same portion of the plan. These are mutually exclusive conditions: the area cannot be both an occupiable tenant floor and a slab opening.

Why it matters: If this is not resolved before construction, the structure, tenant layout, and associated HVAC/plumbing routing will be coordinated to an impossible condition. That can cause major redesign, field delays, and permit/inspection problems because the mechanical trades would be serving spaces that the structural drawings depict as void.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the southeast Level 1 area is intended to remain 'OPEN TO BELOW' or to contain CRU-1 / CRU-2 / CRU-3. Revise the structural and mechanical/plumbing sheets so the floor condition and tenant layout match.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the southeast Level 1 area is intended to remain 'OPEN TO BELOW' or to contain CRU-1 / CRU-2 / CRU-3. Revise the structural and mechanical/plumbing sheets so the floor condition and tenant layout match.

Summary: On M401, the note at the DHW heater continuation reads 'TO DHW HEATERS. REFER TO DRAWING MXXX FOR CONTINUATION.' On M502, the DWR-40 continuation note includes M401: 'REFER TO M202 & M401 CONTINUATION.' This confirms that M401 is part of the continuation path, but the M401 note itself still uses an undefined placeholder sheet reference.

Why it matters: The undefined 'MXXX' reference leaves the continuation path incomplete on M401 and can cause confusion when tracing the DHW connection beyond the heat exchanger/DHW heater interface. The provided images do not prove that M401 should point to the same destination named on M502; they only confirm that the M401 continuation reference is unresolved.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct sheet number for the M401 note 'TO DHW HEATERS. REFER TO DRAWING MXXX FOR CONTINUATION' and replace 'MXXX' with the intended reference. Also confirm how this M401 DHW heater continuation ties to the DWR-40 continuation noted on M502.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct sheet number for the M401 note 'TO DHW HEATERS. REFER TO DRAWING MXXX FOR CONTINUATION' and replace 'MXXX' with the intended reference. Also confirm how this M401 DHW heater continuation ties to the DWR-40 continuation noted on M502.

Summary: Page 30 places 'DWR-19 to DWR-21' in a riser group tagged with 'MF-2' and 'MF-2A', but page 10 labels DWR-20 as 'MF-1' at unit '#520'. The manifold schedule also shows MF-1 and MF-2 are different assemblies with different domestic water sizes and fixture counts.

Why it matters: This is not just a labeling difference. MF-1 is scheduled with smaller water piping and fewer connected fixtures than MF-2. If DWR-20 is installed per the plan tag, the domestic water manifold and branch sizing will not match the riser diagram; if the riser diagram is correct, the plan is mislabeled for DWR-20.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct manifold designation for DWR-20 and revise the plan tag, riser grouping, and associated domestic water sizing so DWR-20 is coordinated consistently across both sheets.

RFI draft: Confirm the correct manifold designation for DWR-20 and revise the plan tag, riser grouping, and associated domestic water sizing so DWR-20 is coordinated consistently across both sheets.

Summary: The riser diagram shows 'RD-1 1800 L 3” STR-10A' and separately 'RD-1 1450 L 3” STR-10C', while the plan shows '3\'ø STR-10A F/A (1450 L)'. This means the 1450 L branch is tagged STR-10A on the plan but STR-10C on the riser diagram, and STR-10A carries different loads across the two sheets.

Why it matters: If left unresolved, installers and reviewers can trace the wrong storm riser, connect the wrong branch, or size the system using the wrong tributary load.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the 1450 L branch should be STR-10A or STR-10C, and whether STR-10A should carry 1800 L or 1450 L. Revise the diagram and plan so the branch tag and load are consistent.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the 1450 L branch should be STR-10A or STR-10C, and whether STR-10A should carry 1800 L or 1450 L. Revise the diagram and plan so the branch tag and load are consistent.

Summary: The roof plan repeatedly uses 'SIM. 07/A8.04' at roof enclosure/scupper conditions. However, detail 07 on A8.04 is 'FIN WALL AT BALCONY' and includes 'METAL AND GLASS RAILING; MIN. 3'-6\' (HEIGHT) FROM DECK WEARING SURFACE'. The cross-reference does not match the roof condition being called out.

Why it matters: If this reference is followed in the field, installers could apply a balcony fin wall/railing detail to a roof enclosure or scupper condition, leaving the intended roof edge construction unclear and increasing the risk of incorrect installation.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct detail for the 'SIM. 07/A8.04' callouts and revise either the roof plan callout or the detail sheet so the referenced detail matches the rooftop enclosure/scupper condition.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct detail for the 'SIM. 07/A8.04' callouts and revise either the roof plan callout or the detail sheet so the referenced detail matches the rooftop enclosure/scupper condition.

Summary: On A.3.01, the plan note reads 'CANOPY TYPE 3 ABOVE (DETAIL 13/A8.15)'. On the referenced sheet, detail 13 is titled 'DUCT CHASE AT EXTERIOR WALL', while a separate detail is titled 'STEEL CANOPY AT SUITE ENTRIES (CANOPY TYPE 3)'. The plan cross-reference therefore points to the wrong content.

Why it matters: If uncorrected, reviewers and installers may open a duct chase detail instead of the intended canopy detail, creating avoidable coordination and construction confusion.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct Canopy Type 3 detail reference for the location shown on A.3.01 and revise the callout so it points to the canopy detail rather than 'DUCT CHASE AT EXTERIOR WALL'.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct Canopy Type 3 detail reference for the location shown on A.3.01 and revise the callout so it points to the canopy detail rather than 'DUCT CHASE AT EXTERIOR WALL'.

Summary: On the plan, the stair tagged '6 A6.01' is noted as '9 RISERS UP @ 6 1/2\' TREADS @ 11\'.' On A.6.01, '6 Section at Landscape Stair #17' instead shows '4 EQ. R @ 6 7/8\'' and '5 EQ. R @ 6 1/4\''. The same cross-reference therefore gives different riser heights for the stair.

Why it matters: This changes stair geometry and can affect code review for riser uniformity, as well as concrete formwork and railing coordination during construction.

Suggested next step: Please confirm which riser layout governs for detail 6/A6.01 / 'Section at Landscape Stair #17' and revise the plan or section so the riser heights are consistent.

RFI draft: Please confirm which riser layout governs for detail 6/A6.01 / 'Section at Landscape Stair #17' and revise the plan or section so the riser heights are consistent.

Summary: On A.1.05, the callout '2 A.5.05' is shown beside 'CRU #3 1,202 sq.ft. STAIR #10', and the same frontage is identified on the plan as 'MINORU BLVD.'. On A.5.05, Section 2 is titled 'Section at CRU on Minoru Blvd', but within that same section the exterior street label reads 'ALDERBRIDGE WAY'. The plan callout, section title, and section street...

Why it matters: This creates a cross-reference mismatch for the CRU frontage section and can cause the wrong section to be applied during permit review or construction at the street edge.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether Section 2/A.5.05 is intended for the Minoru Blvd frontage or the Alderbridge Way frontage, and revise the plan callout, section title, and/or street label so all references are consistent.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether Section 2/A.5.05 is intended for the Minoru Blvd frontage or the Alderbridge Way frontage, and revise the plan callout, section title, and/or street label so all references are consistent.

Summary: On Level 2 - South West, the '10 / A8.03' callout is placed at a façade zone labeled 'PATIO TYPE' and 'LIVING'. Detail 10 on A8.03 is a 'CONCRETE SECTION' for a 'LOBBY' with a 'DOUBLE GLAZED STOREFRONT WINDOW'. The referenced detail does not match the residential patio/living condition where the callout is placed.

Why it matters: If this reference is used in the field, a storefront/lobby sill and concrete section could be applied to a residential patio façade, creating incorrect interpretation of flashing, waterproofing, and window/door interface requirements at that location.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct detail for the residential south façade location labeled 'PATIO TYPE' / 'LIVING' where '10/A8.03' is shown, or revise the callout/detail numbering so the reference points to an assembly that matches that residential condition.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct detail for the residential south façade location labeled 'PATIO TYPE' / 'LIVING' where '10/A8.03' is shown, or revise the callout/detail numbering so the reference points to an assembly that matches that residential condition.

Summary: The Level 01 plan places the callout '7\nA.6.02' at the west amenity edge by '138c\nSTAIR#12'. In the provided A.6.02 sheet excerpts, no callout numbered '7' is visible. The plan callout therefore does not resolve to a matching section/detail on the referenced sheet.

Why it matters: Because the referenced number cannot be found on A.6.02, the intended envelope detail at this location cannot be reliably coordinated or built from the drawing set.

Suggested next step: Please identify the correct section/detail number or sheet for the callout shown as '7\nA.6.02' at the west amenity edge near Stair#12, and revise the cross-reference accordingly.

RFI draft: Please identify the correct section/detail number or sheet for the callout shown as '7\nA.6.02' at the west amenity edge near Stair#12, and revise the cross-reference accordingly.

Summary: Page 97 shows a boxed note 'REFER TO DETAILS: 01/A8.16' with a leader pointing to a circled junction/connection condition in the 'RUN IN JOIST' / 'DROP CEILING' mechanical area near VHP-1 / HPR-21. However, Page 92 Detail 01 is titled 'MANIFOLD SECTION DETAIL IN STRUCTURAL WALL,' and the detail itself calls out a 'MANIFOLD' with 'RADIANT...

Why it matters: If this remains uncorrected, reviewers and installers could apply a manifold-in-wall detail to a joist/drop-ceiling mechanical run location, leaving the actual field condition without a matching referenced detail.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct detail for the location currently tagged 'REFER TO DETAILS: 01/A8.16' in the 'RUN IN JOIST' / 'DROP CEILING' area, or revise Detail 01/A8.16 if it is intended to govern that mechanical run condition.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct detail for the location currently tagged 'REFER TO DETAILS: 01/A8.16' in the 'RUN IN JOIST' / 'DROP CEILING' area, or revise Detail 01/A8.16 if it is intended to govern that mechanical run condition.