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: Requires Resubmit
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE REVIEW v.3
Permit Number - DP22-0188
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE REVIEW v.3
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 02/27/2023 | Site Engineering | APPROVED | |||
| 02/27/2023 | Site Landscape | APPROVED | |||
| 02/15/2023 | Site Zoning | APPROVED | |||
| 03/29/2023 | CDRC Post Review Express | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 03/29/2023 | Floodplain Administration Review | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | DP22-0188 1) Refer to section 3.3.5 of the supplied drainage report. Clarify if the existing bank protection, which appears to be dumped rock and construction debris, meets the requirements of section 9.3 of the COT Standards Manual for Drainage Design. It is unlikely, that this existing bank protection meets these requirements. Extend the proposed rip rap design as needed. 2) Per the geotechnical report, existing soils for the substation are to be excavated, screened, and recompacted, etc.. Clarify what soils effort will be undertaken for the proposed grouted rip rap bank protection. Geotechnical report indicates that soils greater than a 1:1 slope are unstable. Clarify if the bank protection is accounting for any lateral earth pressures. 3) The location of the water harvesting basin in relation to compaction efforts and the proposed bank protection. Provide information regarding potential for piping or hydraulic compaction/settlement in general and then specifically if it would impact the performance of riprap. 4) It is not clearly defined how erosion is controlled when the Q100 shown as 111cfs at the north end of the basin discharges into the rip rap channel 5) Clarify what means of soil remediation will be employed for the site. If over excavation is chosen, please clarify how the volume outlined in the geotechnical report comports with what is shown on the plans. 6) Reference City of Tucson Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management, include all applicable drainage maintenance responsibility notes found in section 14.3-2.-(a),(b),(c),(d) Include in these notes a reference to the O&M Manual 7) Include 100 year water surface elevations on plans 8) As-built plans will need to be submitted as part of the project close out and a pre-construction meeting is required. 9) Please see O&M manual comments in separate word document. Main points that need addressing are a. Expansion of inspection triggers to include 25,50 and 100 year events. Response to include time frame for inspection, if inspection is continuous or periodic, and what types of action are needed b. Additional monitoring along the length of the project and in the Santa Cruz needs to be included. c. Annual inspections reports are to be prepared by a Registrant and presented to the City. Annual report to include inspection reports d. Inspections and reporting needs to include comparisons against current conditions as presented in the drainage report 10) Additional O&M comments may be forthcoming as part of response to comments and further discussion John Van Winkle, P.E. John.VanWinkle@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 01/30/2023 | Fire New Construction | REVIEW COMPLETED |