Southern California Arterial / Civil: 47 Issues Found

Summary: 23 indexed pages | 0 match | 5 minor mismatch | 0 mismatch | 18 missing Minor Mismatch (5): 1.: Expected: TITLE SHEET, SHEET INDEX, VICINITY MAP, ABBREVIATIONS, CONSTRUCTION NOTES, QUANTITIES, LEGEND (1.) | Actual: DOMESTIC WATER IMPROVEMENT PLANS HAVEN AVENUE TITLE SHEET (M-442)(p1) | Reason: Clearly corresponds to the title...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 M-442 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 1 --- 📄 M-442 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 2

Summary: 5 indexed pages | 1 match | 3 minor mismatch | 0 mismatch | 1 missing Minor Mismatch (3): SHEET 1: Expected: TITLE SHEET (SHEET 1) | Actual: RECYCLED WATER IMPROVEMENT PLAN TITLE SHEET HAVEN AVENUE FROM CHINO AVENUE TO RIVERSIDE DRIVE (M-1085)(p1) | Reason: Page 1 is clearly the title sheet, but the parsed metadata uses drawing...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

RFI draft: 📄 M-1085 Schedule Text: DRAWING INDEX — page 1

Summary: 7 indexed pages | 2 match | 5 minor mismatch | 0 mismatch | 0 missing Minor Mismatch (5): 3: Expected: DETAILS (3) | Actual: TRANSITION STRUCTURE PIPE TO PIPE (340-2)(p3) | Reason: The index uses a generic title of 'DETAILS' for this page, while the parsed page gives the specific detail title. Sequence and sheet type are...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

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

Summary: 6 indexed pages | 0 match | 5 minor mismatch | 0 mismatch | 1 missing Minor Mismatch (5): 1: Expected: TITLE SHEET (1) | Actual: HAVEN AVENUE TITLE SHEET (1)(p1) | Reason: Sheet number matches and the title is the same sheet with the project name added. 2: Expected: INDEX MAP (2) | Actual: STREET IMPROVEMENT PLAN -...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

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

Summary: 2 indexed pages | 0 match | 2 minor mismatch | 0 mismatch | 0 missing Minor Mismatch (2): 1: Expected: TITLE SHEET (1) | Actual: SIGNING & STRIPING PLAN MILL CREEK AVENUE FROM 200' NORTH OF CHINO AVENUE TO 280' NORTH OF E. BETHANY WAY IN THE CITY OF ONTARIO (1)(p1) | Reason: Sheet number matches page 1, and this appears to be...

Why it matters:

Suggested next step:

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

Summary: One revision note states 'CONSTRUCT SEWER FROM STA 641+38.26 TO 663+03.30' and places the 30A / 15A work at 'STA 641+38.26.' Another revision note for the same 'DEVELOPER REQUEST PER TM-20526' states 'CONSTRUCT SEWER FROM STA 642+19.50 TO STA 664+87.50' and places the 30A / 15A work at 'STA 541+44.26.' These are conflicting station limits and...

Why it matters: Conflicting revision limits and 30A / 15A stationing can cause the added sewer segment and connection point to be laid out at the wrong chainage, affecting quantities, profiles, and field staking.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct start and end stations for the TM-20526 revision work and the correct station for Manhole 30A / 15A, then revise the revision description consistently on all affected sheets.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct start and end stations for the TM-20526 revision work and the correct station for Manhole 30A / 15A, then revise the revision description consistently on all affected sheets.

Summary: The recycled water plan shows the Haven Avenue alignment at the crossing note with a bearing of 'N00°12'07\'E', while the storm drain plan shows 'HAVEN AVE (PUBLIC)' / 'L1' with a bearing of 'N00°10’21”W'. Those bearings do not match for the same Haven Avenue corridor.

Why it matters: If the two utility sheets are not using the same base alignment, the horizontal location of storm drain crossings relative to the 12-inch recycled water line can be shifted, which affects stakeout, clash checking, and clearance verification.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the governing Haven Avenue alignment bearing for this project and revise the recycled water and/or storm drain plans, line/curve data, and dependent stationing so both utility sheets use the same horizontal reference.

RFI draft: Please confirm the governing Haven Avenue alignment bearing for this project and revise the recycled water and/or storm drain plans, line/curve data, and dependent stationing so both utility sheets use the same horizontal reference.

Summary: Between E. JADE DR and RIVERSIDE, the recycled water sheet identifies the intersection as 'C/L INTERSECTION / 248+14.74 HAVEN AVENUE / 10+00.00 FUTURE STREET', but the street plan labels the side street in that same Haven Avenue segment as 'K STREET (PUBLIC)'. The two sheets do not use the same street name for this intersection.

Why it matters: Using different street names for the same Haven Avenue crossing can misdirect crews, confuse plan review comments, and create inconsistent utility and roadway records.

Suggested next step: Confirm whether the Haven Avenue side street between 'E. JADE DR' and 'RIVERSIDE DRIVE' should be 'K STREET' or 'FUTURE STREET', and revise the conflicting sheet(s) so one name is used consistently.

RFI draft: Confirm whether the Haven Avenue side street between 'E. JADE DR' and 'RIVERSIDE DRIVE' should be 'K STREET' or 'FUTURE STREET', and revise the conflicting sheet(s) so one name is used consistently.

Summary: The sewer sheet lists the benchmark at 785.572 and says the brass disk is set flush in A.C. Street sheet 4 lists 785.527' and says the brass disk is set down 0.3' in A.C. in lieu of set flush. Street sheet 5 returns to 785.572'. These are conflicting vertical control definitions.

Why it matters: If different crews use different benchmark elevations or monument assumptions, sewer profile elevations, curb grades, and tie-in elevations can be laid out from different vertical datums, creating field errors and potential rework.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the governing benchmark information for the set: should the benchmark elevation be 785.572 or 785.527, and is the brass disk 'SET FLUSH IN A.C.' or 'SET DOWN 0.3' IN A.C. IN LIEU OF SET FLUSH.'? Revise all affected sheets so the benchmark note is identical everywhere.

RFI draft: Please confirm the governing benchmark information for the set: should the benchmark elevation be 785.572 or 785.527, and is the brass disk 'SET FLUSH IN A.C.' or 'SET DOWN 0.3' IN A.C. IN LIEU OF SET FLUSH.'? Revise all affected sheets so the benchmark note is identical everywhere.

Summary: The sewer sheet and the water sheet use the same benchmark number and elevation, but they describe two different locations for it. The sewer sheet places 'BENCH MARK No. S.P.S.N. 00789 ELEVATION 785.572' at 'INTERSECTION OF IRONWOOD & RIVERSIDE AVENUES,' while the water sheet places 'BENCH MARK No. S.P.S.N 00789 ELEVATION 785.572' at...

Why it matters: This creates a survey-control conflict between the utility sets. If crews rely on different benchmark descriptions, layout and elevation control for sewer and water work could be tied to the wrong monument or require field reinterpretation before construction.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct location description for Bench Mark No. S.P.S.N. 00789 at Elevation 785.572 and revise the sewer or water sheet so both utility sets reference the same benchmark location.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct location description for Bench Mark No. S.P.S.N. 00789 at Elevation 785.572 and revise the sewer or water sheet so both utility sets reference the same benchmark location.

Summary: The storm drain lateral sheet identifies 'LATERAL HAVEN A1-26 & A1-27 PROFILE' and directs the user to Sheet 5 for the plan view. On the street sheets, page 5 shows 'CB#A1-26' at station 215+47.31 with 775.38TC/768.18FL, but page 4 also labels a different location as 'CB#A1-26' at station 210+96.35 with 768.82TC. The same inlet number is...

Why it matters: Conflicting inlet identification can send construction and inspection to the wrong lateral profile, which can affect storm drain tie-in elevations, utility crossing checks, and record documentation.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct identity and station for CB A1-26, identify which callout is incorrect, and revise the street and storm drain sheets so the inlet numbering and lateral references are consistent.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct identity and station for CB A1-26, identify which callout is incorrect, and revise the street and storm drain sheets so the inlet numbering and lateral references are consistent.

Summary: The Recycled Water 'HAVEN AVENUE TYPICAL UTILITIES LOCATION' identifies the line as proposed with 'PROP 12\' RW (1050 ZONE)', and the RW drawings also state 'INSTALL 1000.00 LF - 12\' DIA. C-900 PURPLE PVC CL 200 RECYCLED WATER'. The Storm Drain 'HAVEN AVE (TYP. SECTION' shows the same size recycled water line as 'EX 12” RW'.

Why it matters: If one discipline is coordinating to an existing 12-inch recycled water main while the other discipline is still constructing that same main, utility separation checks, potholing assumptions, and construction sequencing can be based on the wrong status.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether the 12-inch recycled water main in the Haven Avenue corridor is existing or part of this project, and revise the typical section/profile information so both plan sets use the same status.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether the 12-inch recycled water main in the Haven Avenue corridor is existing or part of this project, and revise the typical section/profile information so both plan sets use the same status.

Summary: The two title sheets use the same City of Ontario General Note 3 topic for obstruction removal and utility relocation, but they direct the contractor to different specification sections. One sheet sends the contractor to Section 402, while the other sends the contractor to Section 5.

Why it matters: Conflicting section references in a general note can cause the contractor, inspector, and reviewer to apply different procedural requirements for the same work item during bidding, permitting, and field execution.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction section intended for General Note 3 and revise the title sheets so the reference is consistent across the TM-20526 street improvement plans.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction section intended for General Note 3 and revise the title sheets so the reference is consistent across the TM-20526 street improvement plans.

Summary: Both Sheet 2 drawings state that elevations are based on a San Bernardino County benchmark, but the benchmark designation and set-down depth are not consistent. The Mill Creek sheet identifies 'BENCH MARK No. 00789' and shows a 0.3' set-down. The Haven sheet shows a different benchmark designation with a leading 'T' and shows a 0.5' set-down.

Why it matters: Because both notes appear to reference the same county benchmark location at Turner & Riverside, the differing designation and set-down depth could cause survey and construction teams to use conflicting vertical control information or search for the monument at the wrong depth. That can affect staking, grading, drainage, and utility elevations.

Suggested next step: Please confirm the correct benchmark designation and monument description to use for survey and construction control on these drawings, including the correct benchmark identifier for the Haven sheet and whether the correct set-down depth is 0.3' or 0.5'.

RFI draft: Please confirm the correct benchmark designation and monument description to use for survey and construction control on these drawings, including the correct benchmark identifier for the Haven sheet and whether the correct set-down depth is 0.3' or 0.5'.

Summary: The two provided title sheets show different basis of bearings statements. One states 'THE BEARING OF N67° 03'00\' WEST FOR THE CENTERLINE OF VINE AVENUE...' while the other states 'THE BEARING OF NORTH 03°03'04\' WEST FOR THE CENTERLINE OF MILL CREEK AVENUE...'.

Why it matters: If these sheets are intended to use the same survey control, the differing basis of bearings should be reconciled before layout and staking are performed.

Suggested next step: Please confirm whether these sheets are intended to share the same basis of bearings. If so, revise the affected sheets so the survey control is consistent.

RFI draft: Please confirm whether these sheets are intended to share the same basis of bearings. If so, revise the affected sheets so the survey control is consistent.