Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you cannot find what you are looking for please submit a records request.

Permit Review Detail

Permit Number: TD-DEV-0426-00090
Parcel: 133033990

Review Status: In Review

Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2

Permit Number - TD-DEV-0426-00090
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2
Review Status: In Review
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
11/13/2026 Site Zoning Standard APPROVED
N/A Commercial Plumbing Standard PENDING ASSIGNMENT
N/A External Reviewers - COT Environmental Services Standard PENDING ASSIGNMENT
N/A External Reviewers - PC RFCD Standard PENDING ASSIGNMENT
N/A External Reviewers - Pima County Addressing Standard PENDING ASSIGNMENT
N/A ROW Engineering Review Standard PENDING ASSIGNMENT
N/A Site Landscape Standard PENDING ASSIGNMENT
11/12/2026 Floodplain Administration Review Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT 1. Previous Comment #2 not addressed. Please label the scenic route designation on all plan view sheets adjacent to Houghton Road.
2. Previous Comment #3 not addressed. Please label and dimension the 30-foot scenic corridor buffer on Sheets 10 and 13. This buffer shall be measured from the future right-of-way line. d. Revise Sheets 10 and 13 to reflect all scenic corridor requirements per UDC Section 5.3.4.A.
3. Previous Comment #4 not addressed. It is imperative that the Houghton Rd prism berm and the proposed waterline berm are not part of the modelling for the no- berm scenario.
4. Previous Comment #5. Need further clarification on explanation of how this improvement complies with Rezoning Condition #17.
5. Previous Comment #7. Clarify whether the proposed 26.1cfs indicated on plan view was determined by the no-berm (waterline or Houghton Rd prism) modelling.
6. Previous Comment #8. Clarify the response that the fill where the walls are placed was included in the ‘A’ Zone encroachment modelling.
7. Previous Comment #10. Please provide construction detail in plans for this device.
8. Previous Comment #11. Portions of plan still indicate dog park. Please provide first flush design downstream of dog park.
9. Previous Comment #15 not addressed. Revise the plan set legend to remove unused entities, including the dumped rock riprap designation, consistent with the drainage report's findings and assessment regarding overall slope stability.
10. Previous Comment #22 not addressed. The A.C. ERZ overlay limits shall be labelled clearly on the plan prior to approval of this project or any permits.
11. Previous Comment #23 not addressed. The A.C. ERZ overlay limits shall be labelled clearly on the plan prior to approval of this project or any permits.
12. Previous Comment #24 not addressed. The A.C. ERZ overlay limits shall be labelled clearly on the plan prior to approval of this project or any permits.
13. Previous Comment #33, please provide additional detail between proposed buildings in the side yard area that complies with building code chapter 18 and Geotech recommendations.
14. Previous Comment #45, please clarify your comment response as the city has not provided an agreement that allows for the LOMR to be split into phases. The grading for both Phase 1 and 2 needs to be completed with building pads, roads, basins, and pad elevation certs before LOMR can be submitted.
15. Previous Comment #53, in comment response, the last sentence is incorrect. The city does not make the determination whether a revised CLOMR would be needed: FEMA will be making that determination. Please clarify response.
16. Previous Comment #57, please provide further clarification whether a Tucson Water design standards or operational constraints required the inclusion of this berm in the proposed design.
17. Previous Comment #64, please provide clarification of flow rates in Section 2 regarding WS-A-B-C shown in Figure 3 with regards to breached levee conditions.
18. Previous Comment #66, further clarification is needed so there is no discrepancy between the 1-foot deep flows crossing Corte Vista de la Mariposa between watersheds B and C. Provide additional discussion of any flow from WS-B to WS-C.
19. Previous Comment #67, revise channel section on page 8 according to response of comment #18 (previous comment #66).
20. Previous Comment #73, please provide missing sheets for Phase II grading within Drainage Report, in particular provide detail for scour protection dimensions for south Basin 3 berm.
21. Previous Comment #74 not addressed. Please provide a first flush capture basin upstream of both Basin 1 and Basin 2.
22. Previous Comment #77, please provide a callout or exhibit within this section.
23. Previous Comment #79, please provide a callout or exhibit within this section.
24. Previous Comment #82, please provide the 2-, 10-, 100-, and 500-year storm event floodplain limits in digital format and drainage report exhibit for both Agua Caliente Creek and Tanque Verde Creek.
25. Previous Comment #84, please revise maintenance guidelines in drainage report to specifically address sediment removal from south basins that were originally channels.
26. Previous Comment #89, geotechnical engineer shall provide a discussion regarding the potential for soil collapse and associated setbacks from any basin to proposed buildings based on the collapse potential.
27. Previous Comment #90, it is understood that an additional Geotechnical addendum is forthcoming to address proposed new import soils from an additional source. City is awaiting this report, please provide when available.
Note: Mandatory in person meeting with Stephen Blood, Joe Macaulay, and Elizabeth Eberbach is required prior to re-submittal to go over remaining comments and clarifications.
11/12/2026 Site Engineering Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT Permit Activity Number: TD-DEV-0426-00090 (2nd Review)
Project: New Multi-Family Development – Mariposa Casitas Phase I (North)
Location: 10125 E CORTE VISTA LA MARIPOSA
Review Date: 11/12/2026
Reviewer: Joe Macaulay – Civil Engineer – Site Engineering
Related Cases: TE-FPU-0323-00152 (CLOMR), TD-DEV-0126-00004 (Rough Grading), TD-DIV-0326-00022 (Block Plat), TD-DEV-0426-00097 (South Phase II)

*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 Administrative Review Comments:
1. Previous Comment #9. Please provide a label and or Keynote withing the site and grading plans for all fence and wall directing them to the associated Landscaping Plans for clarity.

Grading and Drainage Review Comments:
2. Previous Comment #23 not addressed. Plan sheets throughout the submitted set still show the proposed masonry wall at the top of the 1:1 slope face and detail 18 on sheet 23 does not show either the plan sheet layout, or the 5-foot minimum horizontal setback requirement given in the submitted Geotechnical Report Addendum #1. Additionally, linework for the 45-degree angle additional requirement should be included in the detail. Please revise.
3. Previous Comment #25. Please provide a construction detail in plans for the sediment level measurement device that meets DSSDR 4.4.1.4.
4. Previous Comment #28. There are locations shown within the grading plans to the south/southeast portion of the project along the 1:1 slope where the wall is within the required 5-foot setback distance from the 100-year water mark. Please revise.
a. Please see site comment #2 above for additional information regarding the horizontal setback requirements.

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:
Joe Macaulay at Joe.Macaulay@tucsonaz.gov
10/30/2026 External Reviewers - Tucson Electric Power (TEP) Standard REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC sent FYI Notice email sent. No further action is required