Ontario Site Plan Review: 280 Issues Found

Summary: Architectural drawings (A6.406 Plan Detail 01) indicate that the canopy connects to an 'HSS WIND POST PER STRUCTURAL' (a vertical support member). Structural section S-801 Detail 4 also shows an 'HSS POST'. However, Structural plan view S-801 Detail 4A specifies that the connection points are 'THERMAL BREAK RODS WELDED TO HSS GIRT.' (a...

Why it matters: A discrepancy between connecting the canopy outriggers to vertical posts versus a horizontal girt fundamentally changes the structural framing strategy, load paths, connection detailing, and steel fabrication requirements. If the connection point is to a girt, the architectural detailing showing alignment with discrete wind posts is incorrect,...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended primary structural support for the canopy outriggers. Confirm whether the connections should be made to vertical HSS posts (as shown in Architectural A6.406 and Structural Section 4) or horizontal HSS girts (as noted in Structural Plan View 4A), and update the details for consistency.

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended primary structural support for the canopy outriggers. Confirm whether the connections should be made to vertical HSS posts (as shown in Architectural A6.406 and Structural Section 4) or horizontal HSS girts (as noted in Structural Plan View 4A), and update the details...

Summary: Architectural plan A1.210 designates the low roof structure (Grids C to A) as a 'SLOPED STRUCTURE' sloping in 4 orthogonal directions (forming a bowl) towards the central roof drains. However, Structural Low Roof Plan S-202 details this area with a 2-way slope, indicating joists sloping from High Points (HP) at grids C and A down to a central...

Why it matters: If the structural steel is fabricated with a standard 2-way slope as detailed on the structural drawings, it will not form the 4-way structurally sloped bowl expected by the architectural design. This will lead to serious drainage issues and ponding unless substantial sloped insulation (crickets) is added to form the remaining slopes, which is...

Suggested next step: Please confirm the design intent for the low roof (Grids C to A). Should the steel structure be sloped in 4 directions as shown on Architectural, or should it be a 2-way structural slope with a valley as detailed on Structural? If a 2-way structural slope is intended, please update the Architectural roof plan to show sloped insulation forming...

RFI draft: Please confirm the design intent for the low roof (Grids C to A). Should the steel structure be sloped in 4 directions as shown on Architectural, or should it be a 2-way structural slope with a valley as detailed on Structural? If a 2-way structural slope is intended, please update the...

Summary: The Mechanical Unit Heater Schedule indicates that 24 electric radiant heaters (RUH-01 through RUH-24), each requiring 12 kW at 600/3/60, must be connected to Emergency Power. However, the Electrical Single Line Diagram details the 600V emergency distribution panel (DP-EM) with only five branch circuits allocated to step-down transformers and a...

Why it matters: Omitting a 288 kW (approx. 277 Amps at 600V) emergency load from the electrical distribution single-line diagram means the emergency switchboards, branch panels, and potentially the generator itself may be significantly undersized. This lack of coordination will result in missing infrastructure and require major design changes and change orders...

Suggested next step: Confirm if the 24 unit heaters (RUH-01 through RUH-24) are required to be on Emergency Power as scheduled on M0-020. If so, please update the electrical single-line diagram (E-7.1) to include a dedicated 600V emergency distribution panel for mechanical heating and verify that the generator and DP-EM are adequately sized to accommodate the...

RFI draft: Confirm if the 24 unit heaters (RUH-01 through RUH-24) are required to be on Emergency Power as scheduled on M0-020. If so, please update the electrical single-line diagram (E-7.1) to include a dedicated 600V emergency distribution panel for mechanical heating and verify that the generator and...

Summary: The Mechanical Schedules specify several large 575/600V mechanical loads on normal power, including ERV-FG-02 (MCA 341.7A) and an Air Compressor (COMP-FG-01, 150HP). However, the Electrical Single Line Diagram details the main 600V normal power switchboard (LV-SWBD-A) with branch breakers feeding only the ATS units. The diagram entirely omits...

Why it matters: The LV-SWBD-A is rated at 1200A. The combined load of the specified mechanical equipment exceeds 500 Amps at 600V. Not accounting for this load on the normal power single-line diagram suggests that either the main switchboard and utility transformer are undersized, or a complete mechanical distribution switchboard (CDP/MCC) has been excluded...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the normal power distribution plan for the major 575/600V mechanical loads (such as ERV-FG-02 and COMP-FG-01). Update the electrical single-line diagram to include the required branch breakers, MCC, or mechanical CDP, and verify the capacity of LV-SWBD-A and the main utility transformer.

RFI draft: Please clarify the normal power distribution plan for the major 575/600V mechanical loads (such as ERV-FG-02 and COMP-FG-01). Update the electrical single-line diagram to include the required branch breakers, MCC, or mechanical CDP, and verify the capacity of LV-SWBD-A and the main utility...

Summary: The Civil grading plan establishes the Finished Floor Elevation (FFE) for the Operation Center at 196.00 geodetic. In direct contradiction, the Structural foundation plan notes define the Finished Floor Elevation as 198.3 geodetic.

Why it matters: A 2.3-meter discrepancy in the building's primary vertical datum causes severe coordination failures across all trades. Because the Structural drawings baseline their Bottom of Footing (B.O.F.) and Top of Pier (T.O.P.) elevations to 198.3, cross-checking structural foundation depths against civil underground utility inverts (as required for...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct geodetic Finished Floor Elevation (FFE) for the Operation Center. Update either the Civil grading plans or Structural foundation plans to use a consistent vertical datum, and adjust all associated B.O.F., T.O.P., and utility invert elevations accordingly.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct geodetic Finished Floor Elevation (FFE) for the Operation Center. Update either the Civil grading plans or Structural foundation plans to use a consistent vertical datum, and adjust all associated B.O.F., T.O.P., and utility invert elevations accordingly.

Summary: Civil drawing SG-1 specifies a single, flat 'FFE 198.30' for the Fleet Garage. In contrast, Architectural drawing A1.100 depicts a sloped interior concrete slab with a high point of 'EL. 198.44' in the center and varying perimeter slab edge elevations dropping down to 'EL. 198.22'.

Why it matters: If the civil site grading coordinates solely to a flat 198.30 FFE, the exterior grades will mismatch the actual physical slab edges (which vary from 198.22 to 198.30). This can result in non-compliant door threshold heights, accessibility issues, or exterior grades being higher than the interior slab edge, leading to water ingress.

Suggested next step: The Civil grading plan lists a single FFE of 198.30 for the Fleet Garage, while the Architectural slab plan shows a sloped slab with a center elevation of 198.44 and varying edge elevations (e.g., 198.22). Please verify the coordination between the civil grading at the doors and the sloped architectural slab edges to ensure positive drainage...

RFI draft: The Civil grading plan lists a single FFE of 198.30 for the Fleet Garage, while the Architectural slab plan shows a sloped slab with a center elevation of 198.44 and varying edge elevations (e.g., 198.22). Please verify the coordination between the civil grading at the doors and the sloped...

Summary: The Electrical site plan routes a reinforced concrete encased ductbank for the generator through the southwest parking area. Civil drawings specify a large proposed Aquabox SWM tank occupying this exact underground location. The SWM tank has a specified ceiling elevation of 196.19m. With surface grades in this area around 197.27m, the...

Why it matters: Proceeding with the current ductbank routing will lead to a severe field clash with the stormwater management tank, requiring major redesign of either the underground electrical routing or the stormwater management system and delaying site civil and electrical rough-ins.

Suggested next step: Please review the routing of the generator ductbank to avoid the proposed Aquabox SWM tank in the southwest parking area. Provide an updated electrical site plan with a coordinated ductbank route.

RFI draft: Please review the routing of the generator ductbank to avoid the proposed Aquabox SWM tank in the southwest parking area. Provide an updated electrical site plan with a coordinated ductbank route.

Summary: The Civil profile and plan show a 'SENDING PIT\n15.0m LONG X 9m WIDE' at the 'PROPERTY LINE' for an 'INSTALLATION BY TRENCHLESS METHOD'. In the same area, the Electrical plan shows a proposed 'REINFORCED CONCRETE ENCASED DUCTBANK TO\nPROPERTY LINE FOR HONI'S USE' originating from the 'HYDRO ONE HV SERVICE FROM STREET'. The Electrical notes...

Why it matters: If both contractors attempt to install their infrastructure independently, the excavation for the 15m x 9m civil trenchless sending pit will clash with or destroy the 1-meter-deep electrical concrete ductbank. A coordinated utility profile is required to establish vertical clearances and a phased construction sequence.

Suggested next step: Please provide an overlaid coordination plan and an updated civil utility profile that includes the electrical HV ductbank routing at the property line. Clarify the vertical clearances and the required installation sequence between the trenchless sending pit and the concrete encased ductbank.

RFI draft: Please provide an overlaid coordination plan and an updated civil utility profile that includes the electrical HV ductbank routing at the property line. Clarify the vertical clearances and the required installation sequence between the trenchless sending pit and the concrete encased ductbank.

Summary: The Mechanical Site Plan (M0-040) locates a 'MECHANICAL PAD' and 'PROPOSED 3 BOLLARDS' at the southern corner of the building. However, the Landscape Plan (L 100) designates this exact location for the 'SLIDING GATE OPEN POSITION' of a 'DELTA CANTILEVER SLIDING GATE 8.66m x 2.4m HT.' along with 'PROPOSED BOLLARDS FOR GATE PROTECTION'.

Why it matters: If the cantilever sliding gate opens into the space occupied by the mechanical pad, it will physically collide with the mechanical equipment and its protective bollards. This spatial clash must be resolved prior to pouring concrete pads or installing gate footings to ensure both site security access and mechanical operational clearances are...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the coordination at the southern corner of the building between the mechanical pad and the cantilever sliding gate. Should the mechanical pad be relocated, or will the gate be redesigned/realigned to slide in a different direction to avoid a spatial conflict?

RFI draft: Please clarify the coordination at the southern corner of the building between the mechanical pad and the cantilever sliding gate. Should the mechanical pad be relocated, or will the gate be redesigned/realigned to slide in a different direction to avoid a spatial conflict?

Summary: The drawing notes explicitly require that electric strikes on all exterior doors be configured as 'FAIL-SAFE'. According to standard physical security design practice, exterior perimeter doors must utilize fail-secure (FSE) locking hardware. A fail-safe electric strike will automatically unlock upon loss of power, which would leave the entire...

Why it matters: Life-safety free egress requirements on exterior doors are typically accommodated by mechanical panic hardware (crash bars) on the inside, which mechanically retract the latch and allow exit regardless of the electric strike's operational state. Therefore, fail-safe electric strikes are not necessary for emergency egress and introduce a severe...

Suggested next step: Please confirm if the specification for fail-safe electric strikes on exterior doors should be revised to fail-secure (FSE) to ensure the perimeter remains locked and secure from the outside during a power outage, while relying on interior mechanical panic hardware for free life-safety egress.

RFI draft: Please confirm if the specification for fail-safe electric strikes on exterior doors should be revised to fail-secure (FSE) to ensure the perimeter remains locked and secure from the outside during a power outage, while relying on interior mechanical panic hardware for free life-safety egress.

Summary: General Note N-29 incorrectly dictates that the fire alarm signaling must be silenced when the paging system is in use. According to standard life safety practices and fire alarm codes, fire alarms must take absolute priority; a general paging system should be silenced during a fire alarm activation, not the reverse.

Why it matters: Programming the fire alarm notification system to yield to normal paging announcements would create a severe life safety hazard where occupants might not be notified of an emergency. This sequence of operations violates fundamental life safety requirements and will prevent successful system verification and building occupancy.

Suggested next step: Please confirm that the sequence of operations in General Note N-29 is reversed, and clarify that the paging system must be silenced when the fire alarm system is activated.

RFI draft: Please confirm that the sequence of operations in General Note N-29 is reversed, and clarify that the paging system must be silenced when the fire alarm system is activated.

Summary: There is a direct contradiction regarding the location of door openings and structural cross-bracing along Grid Line A. Drawing S-200 (Foundation Plan) indicates door locations by showing '180 APRON SLAB' callouts in the bays between Grids 2-3 and Grids 3-4 along Grid Line A. The corner bay between Grids 4-5 on the foundation plan shows no...

Why it matters: This represents a major coordination failure between the foundation layout and the structural steel framing. If constructed as drawn, the concrete contractor will pour apron slabs in bays that are blocked by steel cross-bracing, and will fail to provide the necessary slab and door recess in the bay where the architectural door opening is...

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct locations for door openings and structural cross-bracing along Grid Line A. Drawing S-200 shows apron slabs between Grids 2-3 and 3-4, but Drawing S-401 Elevation 2 shows cross-bracing in bay 2-3 and a framed door opening in bay 4-5. Please update the foundation plan or structural elevations to align.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct locations for door openings and structural cross-bracing along Grid Line A. Drawing S-200 shows apron slabs between Grids 2-3 and 3-4, but Drawing S-401 Elevation 2 shows cross-bracing in bay 2-3 and a framed door opening in bay 4-5. Please update the foundation plan...

Summary: The Door Schedule specifies OH1-1 overhead doors as 5108 mm high. Section 07 supports this, providing vertical dimensions that place the lintel 8342 mm below the 13,450 Garage Roof (13450 - 4450 - 1850 - 2042 = 5108 mm). However, the East Elevation pushes the window band 700 mm lower (5150 mm from the roof) and sums the vertical drop to the...

Why it matters: If the elevation dimensions are followed during framing or masonry layout, the rough opening will be 580 mm too short for the ordered overhead doors, leading to significant rework, delays, and potential clearance issues below the 4650 mm Office Roof canopy.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the correct vertical dimensions for the East Elevation windows and overhead door opening. Confirm if the window should be placed 4450 mm below the roof (per Section 07) to accommodate the 5108 mm door height per the schedule, and update the elevation accordingly.

RFI draft: Please clarify the correct vertical dimensions for the East Elevation windows and overhead door opening. Confirm if the window should be placed 4450 mm below the roof (per Section 07) to accommodate the 5108 mm door height per the schedule, and update the elevation accordingly.

Summary: The West Building Elevation (A4.301) and Enlarged Elevation (A5.304) depict a single-story lower addition with an 'OFFICE ROOF' at 4,650.00 located at the south end of the west wall (between Grids B and A). However, the South Building Elevation (A4.301) shows a uniform, full-height, two-story facade extending up to the 'GARAGE ROOF' at...

Why it matters: This represents a major architectural contradiction in the building's massing. Structural framing, exterior envelope, and mechanical coordination (as the South Mechanical Pad is located at this corner) cannot proceed until the correct roof height and massing for the South-West corner are resolved.

Suggested next step: Clarify the building massing at the South-West corner (Intersection of Grid 5 and Grid A). Please confirm if there is a single-story lower volume (Office Roof at 4,650.00) as shown on the West Elevation and A5.304, or if the facade extends full-height to the Garage Roof (13,450.00) as shown on the South Elevation. Update all affected...

RFI draft: Clarify the building massing at the South-West corner (Intersection of Grid 5 and Grid A). Please confirm if there is a single-story lower volume (Office Roof at 4,650.00) as shown on the West Elevation and A5.304, or if the facade extends full-height to the Garage Roof (13,450.00) as shown on...

Summary: The Reflected Ceiling Plan (E-3.1) establishes the building's orientation with horizontal grid lines 1-5 and vertical grid lines I-A. The plan illustrates the South exterior wall (along grid 5) containing 'large overhead doors' near grids I-G, and includes a detail callout '2 / E-1.12' pointing specifically to this South facade near grid A-5....

Why it matters: Because the 'WEST' elevation actually depicts the South facade, and the 'SOUTH' elevation depicts a completely different facade (likely North), the '2 / E-1.12' cross-reference on E-3.1 points the electrical contractor to the wrong architectural elevation. This discrepancy will cause significant confusion and errors when coordinating exterior...

Suggested next step: Please confirm that Detail 1 on E-1.12 actually depicts the South Elevation and that Detail 2 depicts the North Elevation. Update the elevation titles on E-1.12 and correct the detail callout on E-3.1 to reference the correct facades.

RFI draft: Please confirm that Detail 1 on E-1.12 actually depicts the South Elevation and that Detail 2 depicts the North Elevation. Update the elevation titles on E-1.12 and correct the detail callout on E-3.1 to reference the correct facades.