Permit Review Detail
Review Status: In Review
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2
Permit Number - TD-DEV-0126-00025
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2
Review Status: In Review
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/09/2026 | Site Zoning Standard | APPROVED | |||
| N/A | ROW Engineering Review Standard | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 06/09/2026 | Site Engineering Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Permit Activity Number: TD-DEV-0126-00025 Project: Private Grading and Drainage Plans for La Escalera Phase 3, Lots 383-738 Location: 7604 S PASEO GRAN ESCALERA Review Date: 6/9/2026 Reviewer: Marco Contreras – Engineering Associate - Site Engineering Joe Macaulay – Civil Engineer – Site Engineering Related Cases: TD-DIV-0925-00086 (Final Plat), TD-DEV-0125-00004 (Tentative) *This plan has been reviewed for compliance with applicable development criteria in the City of Tucson Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-6 and Technical Standards Manual (TSM) Section for waste management, Pedestrian Access, Hydrology -Retention/Detention Requirements, and all site standard code. * City of Tucson Code: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Codes Floodplain Code: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/tucson/latest/tucson_az/0-0-0-19333 Drainage Manual Link: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/pdsd/documents/engineering-code/cot-drainage-manual-searchable.pdf Design standards for Stormwater Detention and Retention Link: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/pdsd/documents/engineering-code/updated-retention-detention-manual.pdf Site Engineering Review Comments: 1. After review of the grading plan (Current DP), the tentative plat, and the final plat in review, it appears there are variations in regard to lot # designations. It looks as though the grading and Final plat appear to match, but when compared to the approved & issued tentative plat, it looks as though the lots have shifted in regard to lot #’s. 2. Provide a descriptor box adjacent to all proposed basins on the grading plan Include a leader arrow to the basin or provide a label for the basin and reference the label on the top of the descriptor box. This can be done through an additional detail sheet or included on current basin detail sheet if the grading plans appear too narrow for such details. Include the following applicable information in the descriptor box: a. Total volume, cubic feet or acre feet; b. detention volume, cubic feet or acre feet; c. retention volume, cubic feet; d. d. first-flush retention volume, cubic feet; e. Q100 in, cubic feet per second; f. Q100 out, cubic feet per second; g. Basin top elevation, feet; h. 100-year water surface elevation, feet; i. 100-year ponding depth, (measured from the lowest elevation of the basin), feet. DSSDR 11.1.3. 3. Provide sufficient proposed spot elevations across the top and bottom of the proposed grouted riprap slopes. 4. All Basins shall have a minimum of 1 sediment level measurement device, which can be incorporated into the weir or the side slope, or constructed as a separate stand-alone device. The device(s) shall be located where sediment is likely to accumulate. DSSDR 4.4.1.4 Provide a keynote/call-out and construction detail relating to the selected sediment level device. These should be shown within all designated basins 5. Provide the information of the geotechnical report – Name, address, contact of the firm – on the cover sheet TSM 2-01.4.1.C.7 6. Show the 2-foot minimum bench grading setback from the property line on the grading plan TSM 2-01.9.0. A reduced setback will require geotechnical justification that no adverse impacts will be caused by the proximity of grading and drainage infrastructure within the minimum 2-foot setback. This will need to be reviewed across all details and grading limits between Escalera Phase 3 (Current) and surrounding subdivisions not tied to the overall Escalera Development. After review of associated details on pages 8-10, it appears only a 1-foot bench is maintained. a. Details 12, 13, 24, 26, 27, 30 - Show the 2-foot minimum bench grading setback from the property line (Separate subdivision) on the grading plan TSM 2-01.9.0 b. Details 10, 19, 31, 32, 33 – Delineate the Subdivision boundary line on the details and ensure compliance with TSM 2-01.9.0 for 2-ft bench as well. 7. Revise all construction details to provide applicable slope treatments – currently the detail point to the landscape plans (tentative), but as this is a grading plan construction set, slope treatments will need to be shown/called-out. a. Provide slope %’s to all basin side slopes – this is to ensure compliance with slope treatment requirements. The landscape plan reference will not be sufficient. 8. Provide a scupper construction detail to the plan set or include a PAG detail reference with the keynotes provided. This should be addressed/updated across ALL tube scupper callouts through the plan sheets. 9. Details 5, 7, 21, & 39 calls for hand placed riprap in 4” grout bed, in compliance with DSSDR 4.7.1.2.d Grouted riprap shall be placed on a grout bed at least 6 inches thick. a. Revise ALL filter fabric references across details to demonstrate compliance with DSSDR 4.7.1.2.a - placed with a blanket thickness of 2 times the 𝐷50 10. Detail 16 will need to be reviewed and revised – it appears a swale in being shown/designed, but it advertently leads to a corner with no outlet as seen on the plan view (Sheet 2). a. The final plat line table shows this location (L2) as 33.57' wide between lots 386 & 389, But the grading plans show this to be a dead-end with both lot 386 & 389 touching. Revise accordingly. 11. Detail 12 - Needs to be revised - per DSSDR 4.7.1 - 2:1 slopes require hand placed rip rap or greater methods. 12. Detail 23 – Ensure to include the Pipes proposed as shown on plan view (Sheet 3). 13. Revise the title block on all sheets to include “City of Tucson” before Pima County. 14. Referring to page 2 redlines – Clarification will be needed regarding the area shown in between lots 384 & 385. This area is not shown on either the current final plat submission, or in the approved tentative plat. 15. Referring to page 2 redlines – Clarification will be needed regarding the area shown in between lots 386 & 388/389. 16. There may be some incorrect information on the plans relating to the SRP’s proposed going S to N through the submission – This can be seen on both page 2 & 3 – Redlines will point to the discrepancies. The values do not appear accurate. 17. On sheet 2 – Angelita Peak appears to be named differently as presented in the final plat – final naming determination will need to be made so that the plans are consistent with all documents. 18. Sheet 5 – Detail 14 appears to be used incorrectly as the redlined area shows a proposed swale. 19. Sheet 2 – The plans show a discharge of regulatory flows around 180 CFS – Revise accordingly to show associated floodplain limits for this area. 20. In Reference to Basin E1 outlet weir area (Sheet 6 – Common Area “B”) - There appears to be discrepancy across submittals - Regarding the Floodplain limits and EHS - Revise accordingly. Notes/Comments: 1. Provide associated swale calculations using equation 7.8 in compliance with Drainage Manual 7.6.5 2. Provide outlet calculations for basin E1 outlet Weir – Details 33 – sheet 12 3. Provide outlet calculations for basin E3 outlet Weir – detail 35 Drainage Report comments: 1. The erosion hazard setback appears to encroach into Common Area “B” and its associated outlet structure between lots 633 & 634 – Provide required Scour calculations within the drainage report 2. Provide associated design calculations for the velocity and depth at Common Area D outlet Channel X-Section to demonstrate the dumped riprap D50=6 with 12” thickness will be sufficient in line with Drainage Manual 9.3 Note: Site Engineering has provided redlined files – refer to the attachments section of the development package to access these files. Plan review for the above referenced structure has been completed. This letter reflects comments to be addressed. For facilitating a shorter review time, please provide updated plans and calculations with a written response to each of the notated items indicating action taken. Do not cloud the changes made for comment updates; revisions are processed if changes occur after the permit is issued. Provide a response letter addressing each comment with location of change on the plans. Submit the separate response letter and plan set files. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact: Marco Contreras at Marco.Contreras@tucsonaz.gov Joe Macaulay at Joe.Macaulay@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 05/19/2026 | CDRC Application Completeness Express | REVIEW COMPLETED |