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-0626-00145
Parcel: 115061940

Address:
144 W LESTER ST

Review Status: In Review

Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2

Permit Number - TD-DEV-0626-00145
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2
Review Status: In Review
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
07/17/2026 NPPO Standard APPROVED PDSD Site Landscape review section has added the activity number to the NPPO Waiver and approved.

Thank you.
Chad Keller, PLA
chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov
N/A ROW Engineering Review Standard PENDING ASSIGNMENT
07/16/2026 Fire New Construction Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT -Fire apparatus access road in excess of 150' shall be provided with turnaround provisions of IFC Table D103.4.
john.vincent@tucsonaz.gov
5203495581
07/07/2026 Site Engineering Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT Permit Activity Number: TD-DEV-0626-00145 (1st Review)
Project: Proposed industrial building with associated access, parking, landscape and stormwater harvesting
Location: 144 W LESTER ST
Review Date: 7/6/2026
Reviewer: Marco Contreras – Engineering Associate & Joe Macaulay – Civil Engineer
Reviewer Contact Information: marco.contreras@tucsonaz.gov & Joe.Macaulay@tucsonaz.gov
Related cases:

Plan review for the above-referenced development package has been completed. This review was conducted for compliance with applicable development criteria including the City of Tucson Unified Development Code (UDC), Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-6, and Technical Standards Manual (TSM) sections governing waste management, pedestrian access, hydrology – retention/detention requirements, and all applicable site standards.
The following comments must be addressed prior to approval. To help facilitate a timely resubmittal, please provide updated plans and calculations along with a written response to each comment, indicating what action was taken and where the change can be found on the plans. Do not use revision clouds on resubmittal drawings — clouds are reserved for post-permit revisions only. Submit your response letter and updated plan set & reports as separate files.

Applicable Code Links for quick/direct reference:
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
City of Tucson Chapter 25: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/tucson/latest/tucson_az/0-0-0-18593

Site Engineering Review Comments:
1. Provide the development package case number (TD-DEV-0626-00145) adjacent to the title block on each sheet of the plan set. [AM 2-06.3.3]
2. Revise general note #7 – the City of Tucson adopted The IBC 2024 with ICC A117.1 2017 edition at the beginning of 2026
3. Revise the cover sheet to include the name, registration number, seal, and contact information for the Civil Engineer of Record, along with the name and address of the Engineering firm. This information shall be presented with the other project registrant contact information on the cover sheet. [AM 2-06.4.1]
4. Revise the cover sheet to include the name, registration number, seal, and contact information for the Geotechnical Engineer of Record, along with the name and address of the geotechnical firm. This information shall be presented with the other project registrant contact information on the cover sheet. [AM 2-06.4.1]
5. A complete Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer must be included with the resubmission of this development package. The geotechnical report is required to support the proposed grading, foundation design, pavement sections, basin infiltration rates, and any retaining wall or embankment design associated with this development. The report must address, at minimum, soil bearing capacity, expansive soil potential, and site-specific infiltration testing results for the proposed retention/detention basins.
a. Note: Receipt and review of the geotechnical report may result in additional comments beyond those contained herein if the report identifies subsurface conditions that affect the proposed drainage design, grading, or structural design in ways not apparent from the currently submitted documents.
6. Site plan (SP3) - Revise the site plan provided to provide Sight visibility triangles for all site entrances: East Lester Street is designated as a minor/local road. These designations will be used for Table 5.3. Refer to TSM 10-01.9.0 Figures 16-18 for examples of SVTs. [TSM 10-01.5.0.]
a. Confirm that no proposed structures, walls, signs, landscaping, or other vertical elements exceeding the allowable height limit encroach within the established SVT at any site access point. Where conflicts exist, the site design must be revised to achieve full compliance.

Grading & Drainage Comments:
7. Grading plan (Sheet 4) - Keynote #2 references 1-foot curb cuts; however, only two (2) instances of Keynote #2 are called out in the plan view. Based on the linework shown on plan view, it appears that more than 2 curb openings are proposed. Revise the grading plan accordingly to accurate call-out all proposed curb cuts.
a. Revise the plan to call out all curb cut locations with Keynote #2 and clearly delineate each curb cut using linework (e.g., dashed or bold lines) so that the number, spacing, and exact location of each opening are unambiguous in the field.
b. Include spot elevations at curb cut inlets, landscaped water harvesting areas, and curb cut outlets for quick reference during site inspections. 
8. Grading plan (Sheet 4) - Sidewalks associated with PAALs must be physically separated from any vehicular travel lane by means of curbing, grade separation (minimum six inches), barriers, railings, or other means, except at designated crosswalks. Demonstrate that vertical separation requirements are met between the PAAL’s and pedestrian area South of the new structure. [TSM 7-01.4.2]
9. The grading sheet does not consistently show erosion protection at all inlet and outlet structures as required by DSSDR Section 4.8.1.4. Erosion protection must be provided at every basin inlet and outlet structure and must extend below the finished grade of the basin floor and/or side slope to the design embedment depth required to prevent scour undermining: This applies specifically to the Western property boundary basin.
a. Show erosion protection (riprap apron, grouted riprap, or equivalent) at every inlet and outlet structure on both the grading sheet and the corresponding detail sheets. Ensure that the protection extends below the finished grade of the basin floor
10. Northeast Swale – The drainage report proposes a drainage swale along the northeast portion of the property; however, the grading plan (Sheet 4) does not clearly depict this swale. Revise the plan set to fully show the proposed swale, including:
a. A dedicated keynote calling out the swale on Sheet 4, with reference to the cross-section detail.
b. The swale alignment shown in plan view with flowline location, beginning and ending flowline elevations, longitudinal slope, and flow direction arrows.
c. Proposed contours and/or spot elevations sufficient to demonstrate positive drainage to the swale's outfall/discharge point.
d. Notice: As the swale is intended to mitigate flows towards the Northern Alley (ROW), ensure that some method of flow dissipation is used, such as riprap, weir-style structure, and/or small water harvesting basin/area to ensure flows do not negatively impact the ROW or adjourning properties.
11. Cross-Section Detail – Provide a typical cross-section detail for the proposed swale that includes, at a minimum:
a. Bottom width and overall top width
b. Side slopes (H:V ratio)
c. Total swale depth
d. Design water surface elevation / flow depth for the design storm, with minimum freeboard clearly dimensioned
e. Longitudinal slope (or reference to plan-view grades)
f. Channel lining/surface treatment (e.g., earthen, vegetated, riprap, or stabilized), including material specifications and thickness where applicable
g. Erosion protection at inlet/outlet transitions, if applicable
h. Relationship to adjacent features (property line, building setback, wall footings, or utilities) with offset dimensions where the swale is near the property boundary
12. The Drainage Report (PDF PG 8) discusses overflow from the water harvesting basin being routed under a sidewalk scupper into the ROW. After review of the plan set, no sidewalk scupper is referenced or shown along the Western portion of the development. Revise the plan set accordingly to ensure consistency across the report and construction plans.
Waste Management comments:
13. After review of the trash enclosure Detail A provided on sheet 5 – it appears variations from standard requirements are proposed which includes:
a. Reduced overall width of 26.67’ rather than 28’
b. Reduced overall depth of enclosure pad of 11.67’ rather than 12’
c. Reduced Clear Space width of 23.33’ rather than 24’-8”
d. Reduced 10’ clear length rather than 10’ - 4”
14. If it is desired to proceed with the “Modified Double Trash Enclosure” as shown by detail A - Environmental services approval will be required in regard to accepting that they will have no issues with the proposed modified enclosure. The contact to reach out to at ES will be Andy Vera at Andy.vera@tucsonaz.gov. Please submit the approval provided for the resubmission of this development package.
a. If approval is provided, it will be necessary that a Technical Standards Modification Request (TSMR) be included in resubmission of this development package.
15. The trash enclosure details and grading plan sheets must be revised to correctly show the required drainage slopes at and around all trash enclosure locations per TSM 8-01.0.0. The following slope requirements must be reflected on both the detail sheets and the grading plan for every enclosure on the project:
a. The approach ramp and surrounding pavement must slope at a minimum of 2% away from the enclosure to prevent water intrusion and standing water at the enclosure pad.
b. The enclosure slab must slope at a minimum of 1% toward the gate to drain away from the enclosure interior.
c. These slope requirements must be explicitly labeled and dimensioned on the grading sheets and the enclosure detail for each enclosure location. A generic note referencing compliance is not sufficient — slopes must be graphically shown and confirmed on the plans.
16. A trash truck maneuverability exhibit has not been provided. Provide a dedicated exhibit or detail demonstrating that a standard solid waste collection vehicle can safely access, maneuver to, and service all proposed trash enclosures on the site in compliance with TSM 8-01.5.3 and TSM 8-01.5.3.F. The exhibit must address the following:
a. The turning radius and approach path of a standard collection vehicle for each enclosure(s) location.
b. Demonstration that the required back-up distance and maneuverability clearances are achievable within the proposed drive aisle and parking layout without conflict.
c. Confirmation that collection vehicles can enter and exit the site in a forward direction, or, if backing is required, that the back-up distance and sight conditions comply with the requirements of TSM 8-01.5.3.F.
Drainage Report Comments:
17. Revise the Introduction to briefly describe the type, size, and scope of the referenced project. [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.2.A.4]
18. A Long-Term Maintenance Responsibility section is absent from the report. This section is required by Drainage Manual Section 2.3.1.2.E and must identify the entity responsible for maintaining all proposed drainage improvements, including the retention/detention basins & Water Harvesting basins, outlet structures, and any riprap erosion protection. This section should immediately follow the Procedures/Methodology section. [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.2.E]
19. The Drainage Report (PDF PG 8) discusses overflow from the water harvesting basin being routed under a sidewalk scupper into the ROW. After review of the plan set, no sidewalk scupper is referenced or shown along the Western portion of the development. Revise the plan set accordingly to ensure consistency across the report and construction plans.
20. Section I – ensure to include a “Required Permits” section that demonstrated that whether any other or no governmental permits are required for the scope of development. [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.2.F]
21. Provide an inspection and maintenance protocol including frequency of inspection, a checklist of items to be inspected and recommended maintenance when an inspection identifies a maintenance requirement and shall be prepared by an Arizona registrant. The protocol may be included in the project drainage report or prepared as a separate document. The protocol shall be reviewed and approved by the Floodplain Administrator prior to approval of the tentative plat or development plan. The protocol shall be delivered to the entity responsible for inspection and maintenance. An example of a detention basin inspection and maintenance checklist is provided in Appendix F. DSSDR 4.1.1
22. Existing vs. Proposed Peak Discharge Summary Table - A comparative summary table presenting existing versus proposed peak discharges for the subject site has not been provided. The table shall address all applicable storm events (2-, 10-, and 100-year) and shall demonstrate compliance with balanced basin detention requirements.
23. The report does not identify the project's watershed. The project site is located within the Bronx Wash watershed. This must be explicitly stated in the report. [Drainage Manual Section 2.3.1.6.A.1]
24. Revise Introduction Section (Site Location) to clarify that this site resides within a non-designated basin area, and as such undesignated basins shall be treated as balanced per City of Tucson amendments. This designation governs detention/retention requirements.
25. Peak Discharge discrepancies’ - The PCLID worksheet (and the peak discharge table on Figure 6) shows post-development discharges with water harvesting at P2 of 1.9 cfs (10-yr) and 4.4 cfs (100-yr) versus pre-developed 1.5 cfs and 3.0 cfs (–0.4 and –1.4 cfs, flagged "neg = need more" on the PCLID sheet). Page 6 of the report states "the proposed flows are further reduced from the existing conditions flows" (true only for the 2-yr) and the Summary claims detention/retention requirements are met. Revise the report and drainage design so that POST peak discharges are less than or equal to PRE-Developed rates. See Comment 27.d regarding revision of the pre-developed baseline
26. Minor Error in Offsite Conditions – The report refers to an arial photo from 2005 but does not describe what intended figure (Figure 4) is being referenced. Revise accordingly.
27. The hydrologic data sheets for existing Watersheds E1, E2, and E3 (Appendix B) each assume 90% imperviousness, a weighted runoff coefficient (Cw100) of 0.94, and "Urban" watershed classification. These parameters do not reflect existing site conditions and shall be revised as follows:
a. Basis of "existing" conditions - Methodology item 7 states the existing condition peaks "reflect the fully developed surfaces" of the prior development, relying on the 2005 aerial (Figure 4). Pre-development/existing conditions for hydrologic modeling shall represent the site as it exists at the time of application, not a demolished historic condition from approximately two decades prior. The current aerial (Figure 1) and the report's own Site Description confirm the site is a vacant parcel with demolished structures and deteriorated, cracked paving. Revise all existing-condition data sheets.
b. Watershed E3 specifically. E3 (0.266 ac, the southwest portion where the former structure stood per Figure 4) exhibits significant vegetation growth and exposed soil in current imagery, with no significant remaining functional impervious cover, similar to more natural desert landscape. Modeling this watershed at 90% impervious / Cw100 = 0.94 is not supportable; revise imperviousness and Cw to reflect predominantly pervious, Hydrologic Soil Group D bare/vegetated conditions.
c. Deteriorated pavement in E1/E2. "Mostly covered with cracked paved surfaces" (Site Description) does not equate to 90% effective imperviousness. Cracked, unmaintained pavement with vegetation intrusion shall be assigned a reduced effective imperviousness consistent with observed conditions, or provide a delineation (exhibit with measured impervious areas) substantiating the percentage used for each watershed E1 & E2. E3 must still be revised.
d. Downstream effect on detention compliance. The existing-condition peaks (E2 = 3.0 cfs at 100-yr, etc.) are carried into the PCLID stormwater harvesting worksheet as the pre-developed discharges (Qpre-rp) against which post-development attenuation is measured. Overstated existing imperviousness directly inflates Qpre and understates the required attenuation. Note that even under the current (favorable) assumptions, the worksheet already shows attenuation deficits of –0.4 cfs (10-yr) and –1.4 cfs (100-yr) at P2. Upon revision of the existing-condition parameters, recalculate the pre- vs. post-development comparison for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year events and demonstrate compliance with balanced basin detention criteria; additional detention volume is anticipated to be required.
e. Consistency. Revise the Existing Conditions narrative, the Existing Watershed Design Flows table (p. 4), Figure 5, and the PCLID worksheet inputs concurrently so all documents reflect the corrected existing-condition hydrology.
28. The report includes the City of Tucson Hydrologic Data Sheets (Appendix B) used to compute peak discharges; however, these sheets yield peak flow rates (Qp) only and do not characterize the runoff volume-time distribution. To substantiate the performance of the proposed water harvesting/detention basin at Watershed P2, revise the report to include:
a. Inflow hydrographs for the contributing watershed for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year design events, developed in accordance with the City of Tucson Drainage Manual / accepted hydrograph methodology, consistent with the watershed parameters (area, Tc, Cw) reported on the data sheets.
b. routed outflow hydrographs demonstrating the post-development peak discharge reduction relative to pre-development conditions at each design event.
c. The routed results shall reconcile with, or supersede, the PCLID worksheet outputs currently reported (Qswh: 0.6/1.9/4.4 cfs). The routed hydrographs must demonstrate compliance with balanced basin criteria.
d. Provide a drain-time demonstration (basin stage/storage vs. time) showing ponded water fully drains within the maximum allowable disposal time of 12 hours per the Pima County/City of Tucson Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual. Given the site's Hydrologic Soil Group D soils (Figure 2) and the basin's reliance on infiltration below the outlet invert, state the assumed infiltration rate with supporting percolation data or referenced design values.
07/17/2026 Site Landscape Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
REVIEWER: CHAD KELLER, PLA
SITE LANDSCAPE/NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION SECTION

PROJECT: PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS, PARKING, LANDSCAPE AND STORMWATER HARVESTING
ACTIVITY NO: TD-DEV-0626-00145
ADDRESS: 144 W LESTER ST
ZONING: LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE (I-1)
LAND USE: INDUSTRIAL
7.17.2026

THE PROPOSED PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SITE LANDSCAPE, NATIVE PLANTS, AND RAINWATER HARVESTING, PER-THE-CITY OF TUCSON UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC), TECHNICAL STANDARDS MANUAL (TSM), AND ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL (AM).

RESUBMIT REVISED DRAWINGS ALONG WITH A DETAILED RESPONSE LETTER, STATING HOW ALL SITE LANDSCAPE AND NPPO SECTION REVIEW COMMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.

SITE LANDSCAPE/NPPO SECTION COMMENTS:

1. The subwatershed hatch is not shown on the building rooftop. Include the rooftop drainage square footage as part of the subwatershed and the percentage will go up. Being right at the 50 percent threshold for compliance is a tight tolerance and if anything changes in the future, the site will no longer be in compliance.

2. The contouring on the grading plan does not match the intent of WHIA 2 and 3 on the rainwater harvesting plan. Work with the civil engineer to make sure that the top contour is offset from the curb line and not just a single contour running through the middle of the proposed WHIA depicting a slight slope or flat area with no depth.

3. It appears that riprap is taking almost half the required width of the landscape border along 10th Av., and a portion of the border along Lester St. I am okay with this if there are constraints on site that force the armored 2:1 slope. Add a leader callout to see the civil plans and details for riprap placement.

4. Include leader callouts for existing and proposed ROW/property lines along Lester St. and 10th Av. Label the SVTs at the entry along Lester St. as well.

5. Parking lot trees would round up from 2.25 to 3 trees required. The street landscape border trees count at 50 percent as long as they are within 10’ of the parking spaces which they are. So, two of the street landscape border trees account for the 3rd tree. Include a note that states this on the planting plan.

6. Prior to site landscape approval, ensure that Site Zoning and Site Engineering comments are fully addressed.

7. Include the Activity Number TD-DEV-0626-00145 on all sheets in the plan set.

Thank you.
Chad Keller, PLA
Landscape Architect
chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov
520.837.4923
07/14/2026 Site Zoning Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT CDRC TRANSMITTAL

FROM:
Bobby Parsons
PDSD Zoning Review Section

PROJECT:
Industrial Building with Associated Site Improvements – 144 W. Lester St. Tucson, AZ 85705
Development Package (1st Review)
TD-DEV-0626-00145

TRANSMITTAL DATE: 7/14/2026
DUE DATE: 7/16/2026

COMMENTS: Please resubmit revised drawings and any redlined plans along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed.

Section 3.3.3.G.5.c UDC, An applicant has one year from the date of application to obtain approval of a site plan that complies with zoning and other development requirements in effect at the time of application, unless an ordinance adopted by Mayor and Council during this period states otherwise. A site plan application that has been in review for a period of one year and has not yet been approved is considered denied. To continue the review of a site plan for the property, a new site plan must be submitted that complies with regulations in effect at the time of re-submittal. The new submittal initiates a new one-year review period. One year Expiration date is June 23, 2027.

SECTION 2-06.0.0: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE (TENTATIVE PLATS AND SITE PLANS)

CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.4.1 - The name, mailing and email addresses, and phone number of the primary property owner of the site, the developer of the project, registrant(s), and other person(s), firm(s), or organization(s) that prepared the development package documents shall be provided on the right half of the cover sheet. The applicable registration or license number shall be provided if prepared by or with the assistance of a registered professional, such as a surveyor, architect, landscape architect, or engineer. All sealing shall be consistent with Arizona Board of Technical Registration guidelines.

1. COMMENT: 2-06.4.1 – Please include the contact information as noted by the standard above for the Geotechnical Engineer on record.

2-06.4.3 - The administrative street address and relevant case numbers (development package document, subdivision, rezoning, board of adjustment, DDO, MDR, DSMR, overlay, etc.) shall be provided adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-0626-00145, adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

2-06.4.7 - General Notes
The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable.

Zoning and Land Use Notes

2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide:

2-06.4.8 - Existing Site Conditions
The following information shall be provided on the plan/plat drawing to indicate the existing conditions on site and within 50 feet of the site. On sites bounded by a street with a width of 50 feet or greater, the existing conditions across the street will be provided.

2-06.4.9 - Information on Proposed Development
The following information on the proposed project shall be shown on the drawing or added as notes.

2-06.4.9.Q - Provide the square footage and the height of each commercial, industrial, or business structure and the specific use proposed within the footprint of the building(s).

3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – Please include the proposed use within the footprint of the building as noted by the standard above.

2-06.4.9.T - Show refuse collection areas, including locations of dumpsters, screening location and materials, and vehicle maneuverability, fully dimensioned, and access route. If dumpster service is not proposed, indicate type of service. For specific information on refuse collection, refer to Section 8-01.0.0, Solid Waste and Recycle Disposal, Collection, and Storage, of the Technical Standards Manual. Refuse collection on all projects shall be designed based on that section, even if collection is to be contracted to a private firm.

4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.T – Please demonstrate vehicle maneuverability for refuse collection as noted by the standard above.

2-06.4.9.W - Indicate the locations and types of proposed signs (wall, free-standing, pedestal) to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements and that minimal locational requirements can be met. Indicate if there are any existing billboards on site. Compliance to the Sign Code, Chapter 3 of the Tucson Code, is required.

5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.W – If applicable, please indicate locations and types of proposed signs as noted by the standard above.

***For additional information on the any standard presented in this memo, please refer to the City of Tucson “Unified Development Code” – Administrative Manual Section 2-06 or Technical Standards noted in the comments. https://www.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/all-codes-plans-determinations ***

If you have any questions about this transmittal, Contact Bobby Parsons at Robert.Parsons@tucsonaz.gov.

RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: Revised development package and comment response letter. To resubmit visit Tucson Development Center at https://tdc-online.tucsonaz.gov/#/home.
Instructions for resubmittal - https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/pdsd/website/Resubmittals.pdf.
06/25/2026 CDRC Review Coordinator Express REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC added Addressing, ADOT, TEP, PAG, USPS, and SWG to the workflow. Review request email sent to Addressing.  FYI email sent to ADOT, TEP, PAG, USPS, SWG.
07/16/2026 Commercial Plumbing Standard REVIEW COMPLETED
06/25/2026 External Reviewers - Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Standard REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC sent FYI email sent to ADOT, TEP, PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required.
06/25/2026 External Reviewers - Pima Association of Governments Standard REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC sent FYI email sent to ADOT, TEP, PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required.
06/26/2026 External Reviewers - Pima County Addressing Standard REVIEW COMPLETED Good afternoon,

Pima County Addressing approves TD-DEV-0626-00145.


Thank you,







David Wilging

Planner I - Addressing Division

Pima County Development Services

201 N. Stone Avenue 1st Floor

Tucson, Arizona 85701

520-724-6381
06/25/2026 External Reviewers - Southwest Gas Standard REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC sent FYI email sent to ADOT, TEP, PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required.
06/25/2026 External Reviewers - Tucson Electric Power (TEP) Standard REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC sent FYI email sent to ADOT, TEP, PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required.
06/25/2026 External Reviewers - United States Postal Service (USPS) Standard REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC sent FYI email sent to ADOT, TEP, PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required.
06/18/2026 OK to Submit - Engineering Fast REVIEW COMPLETED
06/23/2026 OK to Submit - Zoning Fast REVIEW COMPLETED