Northeast Multifamily Phase 1B: 37 Issues Found

Summary: 91 indexed pages | 65 match | 18 minor mismatch | 0 mismatch | 8 missing Minor Mismatch (18): C-1: Expected: COVER SHEET (C-1) | Actual: MERIDEN - PHASE 1B COVER SHEET (C-1)(p1) | Reason: Sheet number matches; actual title adds the project prefix to the cover sheet title. G-1: Expected: GRADING PLAN I (G-1) | Actual:...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 C-1 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 1

Summary: One note specifies a 2-inch street light conduit, while the quantity schedule lists a 1-1/4-inch street light conduit. The 'STREETLIGHT LOCATION' detail also labels the conduit as 1 1/4 inch, so the note does not align with the schedule or the detail.

Why it matters: Conduit diameter affects material procurement, trench and sleeve sizing, pull calculations, and inspection acceptance for the streetlight installation. If left unresolved, the contractor could order and install the wrong conduit size and face rework.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the required streetlight conduit is 2' PVC SCH-40 or 1-1/4' conduit, and revise the note, quantity schedule, and streetlight location detail to match.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the required streetlight conduit is 2' PVC SCH-40 or 1-1/4' conduit, and revise the note, quantity schedule, and streetlight location detail to match.

Summary: The Grading Notes do not agree on the required SD6 structure. One note defines SD6 as a 48' Type I storm drain manhole, while the other defines SD6 as a 48' Type II storm drain manhole, even though the rest of the SD6 note reference is the same.

Why it matters: This creates a direct construction conflict for the SD6 structure type and can lead to the wrong manhole being submitted, fabricated, installed, or inspected.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether SD6 is intended to be a 48' Type I or 48' Type II storm drain manhole, and revise the Grading Notes so the SD6 definition is consistent on all affected sheets.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether SD6 is intended to be a 48' Type I or 48' Type II storm drain manhole, and revise the Grading Notes so the SD6 definition is consistent on all affected sheets.

Summary: D-3 Detail 31 labels 'EX C.E. 'DDDDD'' as 'M.U.E. & PUBLIC D.E. PER CMAP#2025017560' and labels 'EX REMAINDER LOT 'C'' as 'M.U.E. PER CMAP#2025017560'. PP-1 EASEMENT NOTES instead state that 'CE 'DDDDD'' is a public drainage easement under CMAP#2025017560, while the M.U.E. designation is assigned to 'CE 'DDDD' AND REMAINDER LOT C' under...

Why it matters: Conflicting easement type and recording information can affect legal encumbrances, maintenance responsibility, and what civil improvements are allowed within the corridor. If not reconciled before construction, layout, permitting, and acceptance of improvements in this area may be disputed.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct easement classification and recorded document for CE 'DDDDD' and Remainder Lot C, and revise D-3 and PP-1 so the same easement naming and reference are used consistently.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct easement classification and recorded document for CE 'DDDDD' and Remainder Lot C, and revise D-3 and PP-1 so the same easement naming and reference are used consistently.

Summary: The grading note definition for 'SD6' is different across the compared sheets. One note states 'SD6 INSTALL 48\' TYPE I SD MANHOLE WITH WATERTIGHT JOINTS PER CCAUSD NO. 401 & 405.2 & UDACS 2.21.01.B.4.c(2)' while the other states 'SD6 INSTALL 48\' TYPE II SD MANHOLE WITH WATERTIGHT JOINTS PER CCAUSD NO. 401 & 405.2 & UDACS 2.21.01.B.4.c(2)'....

Why it matters: This can change the manhole configuration, materials, and inspection basis for any location called out with SD6, and it creates uncertainty for bidding, submittals, and field installation.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether SD6 is intended to be a 48' Type I or 48' Type II storm drain manhole and revise the keynote definition and affected callouts so the sheets are consistent.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether SD6 is intended to be a 48' Type I or 48' Type II storm drain manhole and revise the keynote definition and affected callouts so the sheets are consistent.

Summary: C-3 shows the overhead safety notice 'CALL BEFORE\nYOU DO\nOVERHEAD\n\n1-702-402-2929', while MU-1 shows the same notice as 'CALL BEFORE\nYOU DO\nOVERHEAD\n1-702-227-2929'. The sheets therefore give conflicting phone numbers for the same overhead-utility contact instruction.

Why it matters: Conflicting call-before-overhead contact information can cause crews to use the wrong utility notification number before working near energized lines, creating avoidable safety and coordination risk in the field.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct phone number for the 'CALL BEFORE YOU DO OVERHEAD' notice and revise all sheets so the overhead power-line safety contact information is consistent.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct phone number for the 'CALL BEFORE YOU DO OVERHEAD' notice and revise all sheets so the overhead power-line safety contact information is consistent.

Summary: The grading-note definition for SD4 is not consistent across the compared sheets. One sheet defines SD4 as a '60\' TYPE II SD MANHOLE,' while the other defines SD4 as a '60” TYPE III SD MANHOLE.' Because the same note code SD4 resolves to two different storm drain manhole types, the drawing set gives conflicting requirements.

Why it matters: This can change the required storm drain structure type, submittals, and field installation. The conflict is active rather than theoretical because 'SDMH #28' is tagged 'SD4' on the storm-drain sheet, so the contractor could build the wrong manhole type.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct definition of grading note SD4 and revise all affected sheets so every SD4 callout references the same storm drain manhole type.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct definition of grading note SD4 and revise all affected sheets so every SD4 callout references the same storm drain manhole type.

Summary: On D-3, Detail 31 assigns the M.U.E. at CE 'DDDDD' to 'PER CMAP#2025017560' and also assigns Remainder Lot 'C' to 'M.U.E. PER CMAP#2025017560.' On SD-1, Easement Note 1 keeps the public drainage easement for CE 'DDDDD' under 'PER CMAP #2025017560,' but Easement Note 2 assigns the M.U.E.s for 'CE 'DDDDD' AND REMAINDER LOT C' to...

Why it matters: Conflicting easement references can cause reviewers and the contractor to rely on different source documents for the same easement area, creating uncertainty about the governing basis for work and maintenance within CE 'DDDDD' and Remainder Lot C.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct reference for the M.U.E.s affecting CE 'DDDDD' and Remainder Lot C—'CMAP#2025017560' or 'DOC#20251113:01556'—and revise the affected sheets so the easement callouts are consistent.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct reference for the M.U.E.s affecting CE 'DDDDD' and Remainder Lot C—'CMAP#2025017560' or 'DOC#20251113:01556'—and revise the affected sheets so the easement callouts are consistent.

Summary: The E4 callout at REMAINDER LOT F is shown on the plans as a '100' WIDE N.U.E. AND M.U.E. GRANTED PER FILE 131, PAGE 72 OF PARCEL MAPS' easement, but the legend defines E4 as a '100’ WIDE POWER EASEMENT SHOWN ON FILE 49, PAGE 75, AND FILE 56, PAGE 35 OF SURVEYS.' The same E4 tag therefore carries two different easement descriptions.

Why it matters: This changes the legal basis and use restrictions for the 100-foot easement area at REMAINDER LOT F. If the wrong E4 definition is used for plat review, utility coordination, or field layout, improvements could be placed under the wrong easement constraints.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct meaning of E4 at REMAINDER LOT F and revise the plan note or the legend so E4 has one consistent definition throughout the drawing set.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct meaning of E4 at REMAINDER LOT F and revise the plan note or the legend so E4 has one consistent definition throughout the drawing set.

Summary: The same keynote is assigned to two different storm drain manhole types. One note states 'SD6 INSTALL 48\' TYPE II SD MANHOLE WITH WATERTIGHT JOINTS...' while the other states 'SD6 INSTALL 48\' TYPE I SD MANHOLE WITH WATERTIGHT JOINTS...'. Because both are for SD6, the keynote does not resolve to one consistent structure type.

Why it matters: This can lead to the wrong storm structure being procured, detailed, or inspected in the field, since the same callout would direct crews to different manhole standards depending on which sheet they follow.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether keynote SD6 is intended to be a 48' Type I or 48' Type II storm drain manhole, and revise the notes and any related callouts so SD6 has one consistent definition throughout the drawing set.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether keynote SD6 is intended to be a 48' Type I or 48' Type II storm drain manhole, and revise the notes and any related callouts so SD6 has one consistent definition throughout the drawing set.

Summary: General Traffic Note 4 states 'SEE SHEET C-3 FOR QUANTITIES, LEGEND AND ABBREVIATIONS.' However, the C-3 quantity entry identifies the streetlights as '100W H.P.S. LUMINAIRE STREET LIGHT W/DECORATIVE POLE,' while the streetlight circuit verification tables are based on 'NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL LED STLTS @ 0.30 AMPS/EA.' The referenced quantity...

Why it matters: H.P.S. versus LED changes fixture selection, current draw, photometric submittals, and procurement. If these sheets are not aligned, the contractor cannot determine which streetlight type is actually intended for construction and for circuit-capacity review.

Suggested next step: Confirm whether the project streetlights are H.P.S. decorative luminaires or LED streetlights, and revise the quantity sheet and circuit-capacity calculations so one fixture type is used consistently throughout the set.

RFI draft: Confirm whether the project streetlights are H.P.S. decorative luminaires or LED streetlights, and revise the quantity sheet and circuit-capacity calculations so one fixture type is used consistently throughout the set.

Summary: The overhead-line safety warning shows two different contact numbers in the drawing set. One sheet shows 'CALL BEFORE / YOU DO / OVERHEAD' with '1-702-402-2929,' while another shows the same warning text with '1-702-227-2929.' The same safety notice therefore carries conflicting phone numbers.

Why it matters: Conflicting safety contact information can send field crews to the wrong number when coordinating work near overhead power lines, creating avoidable safety risk and field delays.

Suggested next step: Confirm the correct overhead power-line contact number and update all warning graphics and notes so only one number is issued for construction use.

RFI draft: Confirm the correct overhead power-line contact number and update all warning graphics and notes so only one number is issued for construction use.

Summary: In the referenced PP-2 area, the storm line at 'SDMH #37' is shown as '21 LF 18\' RCP'. SD-1's 'SDDI 12 - PLAN VIEW' also shows '18\' RCP' adjacent to 'SDDI #12'. But the SD-1 profile for the same 'SDMH #37' to 'SDDI #12' connection calls it '21.07 LF 18\' C-900 PVC SD'. The same storm lateral therefore has conflicting pipe materials.

Why it matters: RCP versus C-900 PVC changes the pipe specification, jointing, installation requirements, and procurement. If this is not clarified before construction, the inlet connection could be built with the wrong material.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the required pipe material for the storm lateral between SDMH #37 and SDDI #12, and revise the PP-2 / SD-1 plan and profile sheets so the same material is shown everywhere.

RFI draft: Please confirm the required pipe material for the storm lateral between SDMH #37 and SDDI #12, and revise the PP-2 / SD-1 plan and profile sheets so the same material is shown everywhere.

Summary: The legend defines 'E4' as '100’ WIDE POWER EASEMENT SHOWN ON FILE 49, PAGE 75, AND FILE 56, PAGE 35 OF SURVEYS'. However, the 100-foot corridor tagged 'E4' on both pages at 'REMAINDER LOT F' is also labeled '100' WIDE N.U.E. AND M.U.E. GRANTED PER FILE 131, PAGE 72 OF PARCEL MAPS SEE SHEET HCP FOR LIMITS'. The E4 legend reference and the plan...

Why it matters: If not corrected, reviewers and field crews cannot tell whether this strip is intended to be a power easement, a combined non-exclusive/municipal utility easement, or both. That ambiguity can affect utility coordination, encroachment review, and plat/easement interpretation before construction.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct designation and recording basis for the 100-foot easement at Remainder Lot F, and revise the legend and/or plan callout so the E4 tag has one consistent meaning across the sheets.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct designation and recording basis for the 100-foot easement at Remainder Lot F, and revise the legend and/or plan callout so the E4 tag has one consistent meaning across the sheets.

Summary: One grading-note legend defines SD6 as a 48-inch Type II storm drain manhole, while the other defines SD6 as a 48-inch Type I storm drain manhole. The same SD6 designation therefore resolves to two different manhole types within this sheet set.

Why it matters: This can change the required manhole detail, structure type, submittal, and inspection basis for any SD6-tagged storm drain structure.

Suggested next step: Confirm whether SD6 is intended to be Type I or Type II, and revise the duplicated grading notes so all sheets use one consistent SD6 definition.

RFI draft: Confirm whether SD6 is intended to be Type I or Type II, and revise the duplicated grading notes so all sheets use one consistent SD6 definition.