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-0626-00148
Parcel: 10610002A

Address:
3749 N ROMERO RD

Review Status: In Review

Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2

Permit Number - TD-DEV-0626-00148
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2
Review Status: In Review
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
N/A Commercial Plumbing Standard PENDING ASSIGNMENT
N/A External Reviewers - Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Standard PENDING ASSIGNMENT
N/A Fire New Construction Standard PENDING ASSIGNMENT
N/A NPPO Standard PENDING ASSIGNMENT
N/A ROW Engineering Review Standard PENDING ASSIGNMENT
N/A Site Landscape Standard PENDING ASSIGNMENT
N/A Site Zoning Standard PENDING ASSIGNMENT
06/24/2026 Site Engineering Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT Permit Activity Number: TD-DEV-0626-00148 (1st Review)
Project: Minor Development Plan for R.E. Darling Co. The proposed use of the project is general manufacturing.
Location: 3749 N ROMERO RD
Review Date: 6/24/2026
Reviewer: Marco Contreras – Engineering Associate
Reviewer Contact Information: marco.contreras@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 Administrative Review Comments:
1. Provide the development package case number (TD-DEV-0626-00148) adjacent to the title block on each sheet of the plan set. [AM 2-06.3.3]
2. 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]
3. Provide the page number and total number of pages within the DP (i.e., sheet xx of xx) on the bottom right corner of each page. [AM 2-06.4.2.D]
4. Provide the General note: Maintenance (a) that the owner or owners shall be solely responsible for operation, maintenance, and liability for drainage structures and detention basins; (b) that the owner or owners shall have an Arizona Registered Professional Civil Engineer prepare a certified inspection report for the drainage and detention/retention facilities at least once each year, and that these regular inspection reports will be on file with the owner for review by City staff, upon written request; (c) that City staff may periodically inspect the drainage and detention/retention facilities to verify that scheduled and unscheduled maintenance activities are being performed adequately; and (d) that the owner or owners agree to reimburse the City for any and all costs associated with maintaining the drainage and detention/retention facilities, should the City find the owner or owners deficient in their obligation to adequately operate and maintain their facilities. [Drainage Manual 14.3.2]
5. Provide the Zoning and Land Use General Note: “Any relocation or modification of existing utilities and/or public improvements necessitated by the proposed development will be at no expense to the public.” [AM 2-06.4.7.D]
6. Provide the Zoning and Land Use General Note: “No structure or vegetation shall be located or maintained so as to interfere with the sight visibility triangles in accordance with Section 10-01.5.0, Sight Visibility, of the Technical Standards Manual.” [AM 2-06.4.7.C.2]
7. Provide the general note: “Any Proposed signs will be approved per separate permit” [AM 2-06.4.7]
8. Provide the Zoning and Land Use General Note: “Drainage will remain in its natural state and will not be altered, disturbed, or obstructed other than as shown on this site plan.” [AM 2-06.4.7.B.3]
9. Provide the Zoning and Land Use General note: “The developer, any successors and assigns, will hold the City of Tucson, its officers, employees, and agents harmless from any and all claims for damages related to the use of this development as shown hereon, now and in the future, by reason of flooding, flowage, erosion, or damage caused by water, whether surface flood or rainfall.” [AM 2-06.4.7.B.1]
10. Provide the general note: “Any Proposed signs will be approved per separate permit”
Site & PAAL Comments:
11. Per TSM 7-01.4.1.B, A sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any access lane or PAAL on the side where buildings are located. Demonstrate how this is addressed regarding the southeast portion of the new structure.
12. Revise keynote 7 (CI101) – it currently calls out 2” AC pavement on 4” ABC, but the surfacing details provided do not show these values. Revise accordingly to comply with Geotechnical recommendations.
Grading & Drainage comments:
13. The grading plans lack sufficient spot elevation information at key drainage control points necessary to verify design intent and facilitate site inspections during and after construction. Provide spot elevations at all of the following locations:
a. All curb cut inlet locations, showing both the top of curb elevation and the adjacent pavement grade at the inlet opening.
b. All landscaped water harvesting area inlet and overflow points.
c. All curb cut outlet locations, showing outlet invert elevation and the receiving grade immediately downstream.
d. Top of curb versus finished pavement grade at key transitions throughout the site to confirm positive drainage and curb reveal are maintained as designed.
14. Provide a keynote on the grading sheets (CG102 & CG103) for the proposed curb cut/openings shown that are intended to lead towards the proposed basin.
15. Provide keynotes and call-outs identifying all new structure downspouts and sidewalk scupper locations on the site plan sheets. Sidewalks shall be flood free for all storm discharges up to and including a ten-year frequency flood event, and drainage flowing across any pedestrian circulation path shall be conveyed under the path for up to and including the ten-year frequency flood events.[TSM 7-01.4.1.E and 7-01.4.3.E] This information is required to demonstrate compliance and to ensure coordination with building permit plan review.
16. Detention basins with uniform side slopes and no terraces may incorporate retention for a maximum depth of 9” below the lowest outlet elevation. The volume provided below the outlet can be counted as retention volume. The volume provided below the outlet can be counted as retention volume. If infiltration testing is provided, the retained depth may be increased. [DSSDR 2.5]
a. It will be required that infiltration testing be completed for the proposed basin to demonstrate compliance with required drain down times. [DSSDR 4.5.1.1]. For resubmission, ensure to revise the geotechnical report to include this analysis. (Refer to subsequent drainage report comment for further details).
17. Provide a cross-section detail for the proposed outlet Weir for the new basin.
a. Provide both a N-S as well as a W-E cross section detail(s) to demonstrate compliance with applicable erosion protection dimensions that should be determined and provided within the drainage report.
18. Clarification required – Grading plan (Sheet CG103) shows keynote #2 “Grouted riprap scupper.” Is this simply grouted riprap channelized relating to the curb cut, or is an actual sidewalk scupper proposed here? Revise the keynote language to better clarify what is being proposed here.
19. All proposed retention and detention basins must be provided with a minimum of one sediment level measurement device per basin in accordance with DSSDR Section 4.4.1.4. The device may be incorporated into the basin outlet weir structure, embedded in the basin side slope, or constructed as a separate standalone marker. The device must be located where sediment is most likely to accumulate within the basin. Address the following on the plans:
a. Add a keynote and corresponding call-out on the grading sheets identifying the sediment level measurement device at each basin location.
b. Provide a construction detail for the selected device type showing its dimensions, materials, installation method, and graduated measurement markings.
c. The device detail and placement must be consistent across all six basins and must be incorporated into the inspection and maintenance protocol required by DSSDR Section 4.1.1.
20. Clarify & designate the proposed slope treatment/surfacing for the proposed basin on the grading plan (CG103) – hydroseed, screen rock, dumped riprap, etc.
21. Clarification/revision required – the grading plan (CG103) denotes 4:1 slopes, but cross section detail E shows 3:1. If the 3:1 slope only applies to the grouted riprap portion, ensure to make this clear on plan view.
a. Dimension the horizonal dimension for the riprap shown on the discussed cross section.
22. Clarification/revision required – the grading plan (CG103) denotes 4:1 slopes, but cross section detail A shows 3:1. Ensure to make this clear on plan view.
23. Expand Cross-Section detail D to encompass the rainwater harvesting basin proposed to the south.
24. Except for Rainfall Only Non-contributing Basins, stormwater harvesting basins shall be designed with an inlet. The inlet shall meet the following criteria: a. The inlet shall be located to accept flow from the contributing watershed. b. Inlet erosion protection shall be placed at a width sufficient to encompass flow expansion downstream of the inlet. Non-grouted rock shall consist of minimum 4-inch rock hand-placed in 2 layers on filter fabric level with finished grade. Grouted rock shall be embedded into the concrete a minimum of ½ the rock diameter with flat faces placed to provide a level surface. DSSDR 5.3.1.8 Demonstrate this on the grading plan sheets for all rainwater harvesting basins.
a. Ensure applicable erosion protection for this inlet(s) are shown accordingly.
Drainage Report Comments:
25. The report does not demonstrate drain-down compliance for the proposed basin(s) as required by DSSDR Section 4.5. The resubmission must include a dedicated section that calculates and documents the drain-down time for each basin using results from site-specific infiltration testing. The section should showcase this drain down compliance using the results from the infiltration testing completed.
26. Revise the cover page to provide City of Tucson designation. The current property information only shows Pima County.
27. Include within section 5, a table similar to Table 2.2 in DSSDR 2.2. This should break down how the first flush requirement was determined as well as demonstrate how much each drainage improvement achieves.
28. Include within the purpose section the objectives of the report, which should include
a. Compute the peak onsite discharges under existing and proposed conditions
b. Provide detailed calculations for onsite conveyance improvements
c. Provide calculations for first flush retention and critical basin detention drainage requirements
29. 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 critical basin detention requirements, including the required 15% post-development peak discharge reduction from pre-development levels for the Ruthrauff Wash Critical Basin tributary area.
30. Revise the report to include a more reflective Summary & Conclusions section as described: [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.7
a. Provide a summary of the important analyses and conclusions presented in the report.
b. Certify that the proposed drainage plan, once properly constructed, will adhere to applicable Local, State, and Federal Floodplain Regulations.
31. City of Tucson Hydrologic Data Sheets - All hydrologic computations were performed using the Pima County PC-Hydro online tool, and the associated PC-Hydro summary sheets. City of Tucson Hydrologic Data Sheets with applicable hydrographs shall be submitted for all storm events computed, including the 2-, 10-, and 100-year peak discharges. Pima County data sheets will not be solely accepted in lieu of City of Tucson data sheets.
a. Ensure to use the required 3-inches for the one-hour rainfall depth is used for the calculations.
32. Riprap Sizing & Apron Dimensions – Confirm that the riprap classification (D₅₀ stone size) and apron dimensions (length, width, and depth) shown on the plans are consistent with the erosion protection calculations required. Provide the associated erosion riprap calculations. At a minimum, the following shall be substantiated at the Drainage Report: [Drainage Manual Chapter 9]
a. Riprap sizing (D₅₀): Shall be determined in accordance with Section 9 design procedures, accounting for the design discharge velocity, flow depth, and channel geometry at the outlet or protected reach.
b. Apron length and width: Shall reflect the hydraulic conditions (Froude number, tailwater depth, and flow spread) used in the energy dissipation analysis.
c. Apron depth/thickness: Shall satisfy the minimum blanket thickness requirements relative to the specified D₅₀.
d. Filter fabric / bedding layer: Confirm specification is consistent with Section 9 material requirements.
33. The Drainage report is missing a Long-Term Maintenance Responsibility section - Specify the name, address, and telephone number of the person(s), firm(s), agency or agencies responsible for the ownership, operation, scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, and liability of drainage improvements (i.e., roads, parking areas, washes, drainageways, detention/retention basins, common areas, etc.) described in the drainage report. List other documents where these responsibilities are documented (i.e., CC&Rs, Final Plats, Development Plans, etc.) [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.2.E.1]
34. Ensure to include a “Required Permits” section that demonstrated that if any other or no governmental permits are required for the scope of development. [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.2.F]
35. 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 The currently provided checklist is considered insufficient. [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.6.C]
SWPPP Sheet Comments:
36. Ensure to delineate flow arrows on the SWPPP Sheet provided. (CS101)
37. No material storage/staging area — no area is designated for storage of construction materials, chemicals, or hazardous substances, revise the plan to provided appropriate staging area(s).
38. No emergency contact information — operator name, 24-hour emergency contact, and site supervisor should appear on the sheet
39. No inspection schedule note — at minimum, a note referencing the required inspection frequency (per CGP) should be included on the sheet.
40. No interim or final stabilization notes — the plan doesn't indicate what stabilization method will be used for disturbed areas at project completion (required per CGP); especially important for a Tucson site given the monsoon season and ADEQ's 14-day stabilization deadlines.
06/17/2026 CDRC Application Completeness Express REVIEW COMPLETED
06/22/2026 CDRC Review Coordinator Express REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC added ADOT to the workflow. Review request email sent to ADOT.FYI email sent to TEP, PAG, USPS, and SWG
06/17/2026 OK to Submit - Engineering Fast REVIEW COMPLETED
06/22/2026 OK to Submit - Zoning Fast REVIEW COMPLETED
06/24/2026 ROW Review REVIEW COMPLETED