Permit Review Detail
Review Status: In Review
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2
Permit Number - TD-DEV-0726-00193
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 | ROW Review | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| N/A | Site Landscape Standard | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| N/A | Site Zoning Standard | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 08/17/2026 | Site Engineering Standard | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | Permit Activity Number: TD-DEV-0726-00193 (1st Review) Project: This site is a proposed Allsup's Gas Station with 7 MPD's and a 5,630 sf Convenience Store. Location: 3170 W EL CAMINO DEL CERRO Review Date: 8/17/2026 Reviewer: Marco Contreras – Engineering Associate & Joe Macaulay – Civil Engineer 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 Review Comments: 1. Provide the page number and total number of pages within the Development Package plan set (i.e., sheet xx of xx) on the bottom right corner of each page. [AM 2-06.4.2.D] 2. 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] 3. 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] 4. Provide the general note: “Any Proposed signs will be approved per separate permit” [AM 2-06.4.7] 5. 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] 6. 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] 7. Revise the parking calculations provided to demonstrate compliance with applicable ADA and van ADA parking spaces. 8. Provide the following general note: Retaining walls and/or screen walls referenced on this plan are to be designed by others. Elevations shown hereon are for reference only. The contractor shall confirm exact elevations. All retaining/structural walls and/or screen walls require a separate building permit and are not covered under the grading permit for this project. a. Ensure to update plan view keynotes/call-outs on grading sheet to state – “To be Built under separate permit” relating to all structural and retaining walls. Waste Management Comments: 9. Provide a complete trash enclosure construction details in compliance with TSM 8-01.5.0. Details must address wall materials, wall height, gate type and swing, foundation, and enclosure dimensions. It is strongly encouraged that the figures presented in TSM 8-01.9.0 be used as the minimum basis for the enclosure and dumpster layout details shown on the plans. a. If it is desired to proceed with the “Modified Dumpster Enclosure” as shown - Environmental services approval will be required in regard to accepting that they will have no issues with the proposed modified requirements. 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. b. If approval is provided, it will be necessary that a Technical Standards Modification Request (TSMR) be included in resubmission. 10. Waste stream calculations have not been provided. Provide the required waste stream calculations for the entire development. The calculations must be presented in table format and must: [TSM 8-01.8.0] a. Break down waste generation by use type and unit count (e.g., number of residential units, commercial square footage, etc.) using the generation rates prescribed in TSM 8-01.8.0. b. Identify the total estimated solid waste and recycling volumes generated by the development on a periodic basis (weekly or per collection cycle). c. Demonstrate that the number, size, and configuration of the proposed enclosures and dumpster containers are adequate to accommodate the calculated waste volumes between collection intervals. d. State how solid waste and recyclables will be handled and collected, including the proposed collection frequency. 11. The plans do not demonstrate compliance with TSM 8-01.5.1.A, which requires that adequate space be provided for both solid waste and recycling collection services. Revise the plans to clearly show that each proposed enclosure provides designated, separate space for solid waste containers and recycling containers. 12. 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. 13. Delineate the required clearance space in front of the proposed enclosure on plan view (Sheet 4) – 14x40 (single), 28x40 (double) Site & PAAL Comments: 14. Site plan (Sheet C-05.0) - Revise the site plan provided to provide Sight visibility triangles for all site entrances: El Camino Del Cerro is designated as an Arterial Road. This designation 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. 15. Site plan (Sheet C-05.0) – Revise plan view to denote the proposed heights of the Allsup’s & Fueling Canopy similar to how the SF is presented. 16. Clarification required – Plan view (Sheet C-05.0) shows what can be deduced to potentially be bollards at the front of each parking spaces, but there are no references or keynotes provided. a. It will be required that wheel stops be used vs. bollards - Wheel Stops Required at Sidewalk-Adjacent Spaces - Wheel stops are required at all parking spaces that abut a sidewalk or pedestrian circulation path where the sidewalk width would be reduced to less than 4 feet by vehicle overhang. Sidewalks measuring 6.5 feet or greater in width are exempt from this requirement, as the additional width accommodates standard vehicle overhang without encroaching on the minimum 4-foot pedestrian clear zone. [UDC 7.4.6.H] b. Wheel stops at the Eastern property boundary - When wheel stops are provided within parking spaces, the wheel stop must be placed a minimum of 2.5 feet from the front of the parking stall — measured from the front stall line to the back face of the wheel stop. 17. Pedestrian circulation is required to connect all buildings, dumpster areas, common areas, and the sidewalk on all the street frontages [TSM 7-01.3.3]. Demonstrate how this requirement is addressed for connecting the site to the proposed trash enclosure and street frontage along El Camino Del Cerro. Grading & Drainage Comments: 18. As mentioned in previous review capacities - TP-PRE-0226-00036 - The Santa Cruz River floodplain is located on the north and west perimeter of this property and will require a floodplain use permit for any work within a floodplain. The 100yr-floodplain limits from previous study from CMG will need to be delineated and shown in the construction plans to determine the proximity of the proposed work and possible encroachment into the floodplain. a. The drainage report will need to be revised/updated to account for this analysis. It would fit best within the existing conditions or off-site sections. 19. Provide a descriptor box adjacent to all proposed basins on the Grading plans. 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: [DSSDR 11.1.3] - Notice: some information is acknowledged, but ensure this list is referenced and the descriptors updated accordingly. 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. 20. Grading Plan (Sheet C-6.0) – The Limits of Grading (LOG) are not clearly depicted on the grading plan. The LOG must be shown using a distinct line type to differentiate it from other plan elements and to clearly define the extent of proposed ground disturbance. It is recommended that a heavier or bolder line type be used to clearly see the delineated LOD 21. Provide keynotes and call-outs identifying all new structure downspouts and sidewalk scupper locations on the grading plan & 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]. It will need to be demonstrated that all pedestrian pathways are shown to not be subject to roof drainage discharge. 22. Detail A (C-08.2) – Revise this detail to show a. The total proposed height of the retaining wall shown b. Setback dimension from the Property line c. Setback dimension between the wall and the PAAL – PAALs must be setback at least two feet from a wall [UDC 7.4.6.F.2.b] d. Existing vs. proposed elevations 23. Revision required – After review of Detail B (C-08.2) – revise grading sheet plan view (C-06.0) to provide indication and reference to the proposed swale along the Eastern property boundary a. Ensure to do the same for the Southern boundary. 24. Provide an applicable swale detail 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 25. Show the required 2-foot minimum grading bench/setback. Dimension this setback on the grading plan view and on all applicable cross-section details. Any reduction of this setback requires a geotechnical justification demonstrating no adverse impacts from grading and drainage improvements adjacent to the property line. [TSM 2-01.9.0] a. This will need to be addressed for detail B (Sheet C-08.2) b. This will need to be addressed regarding the north portion of detention basin A c. 26. Provide a complete construction detail for the proposed riprap side-slopes/erosion protection that demonstrates compliance with DSSDR 4.7.1 side slope standards. The detail(s) must include, at minimum: a. A filter fabric specification reference identifying the type, class, and placement requirements for the geotextile fabric to be used beneath the grouted riprap, in accordance with applicable ADOT or ASTM standards. b. Unless grouted, rock riprap shall be underlain with filter fabric. The filter fabric shall be woven for a minimum of 2 feet into the upper end of the blanket and wrapped for a minimum of 2 feet around the riprap base of the blanket as illustrated in Figure 4.4 c. Denote the slope Gradient Units on the riprap detail. 27. Regarding Detention basin A – Denote the slope gradient on plan view (C-06.0) 28. Regarding all proposed curb cuts – Revise the site plan and grading plan sheets to denote the intended width in feet/inches of each proposed curb cut. 29. Basin maintenance access – regarding detention basin A – demonstrate how maintenance within the basin will occur. This may require that a maintenance access ramp be provided for proper access. 30. 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 three basins and must be incorporated into the inspection and maintenance protocol required by DSSDR Section 4.1.1. SWPPP Comments: 31. No emergency contact information — operator name, 24-hour emergency contact, and site supervisor should appear on the sheet 32. No inspection schedule note — at minimum, a note referencing the required inspection frequency (per CGP) should be included on the sheet. 33. 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. Drainage Report Comments: 34. Revise the cover sheet of the report to provide the telephone number of the engineering firm which created the report and the client for whom the report was prepared. [ Drainage Manual 2.3.1.1.C & Drainage Manual 2.3.1.1.D] 35. Provide a legal description of the specific parcel or parcels in question within the Introduction section of the report [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.2.A.3] 36. Revise the Introduction section 1.0. to briefly describe the type, size, and scope of the referenced project. [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.2.A.4] 37. Objectives of the drainage report - Revise the objectives section of the report to include the scope/purpose of the drainage report in question. Ensure to enumerate the report objectives demonstrates compliance with applicable City of Tucson First-Flush retention / (Balanced) basin detention requirements. [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.2.B] a. Ensure to include “A review of the existing flow patterns and surrounding development” b. Ensure to include “A hydrologic analysis of the contributing on-site watersheds under existing vs. proposed conditions” c. Ensure to include “Determine Balanced basin detention and first-flush retention requirements in compliance with City of Tucson standards.” 31. Critical/Balanced basin section (PDF PG 5) – revise this section accordingly. When a development does not reside within a designated critical or balanced basin and as such undesignated basins shall be treated as balanced according to the City of Tucson amendments. This designation governs detention/retention requirements. In compliance with balanced basin requirements – the project is required to show that post-development peak discharges do not exceed pre-development peak discharges for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year storm events. a. Ensure to remove the verbiage regarding waiving of retention/detention requirements as this is not a true standard or procedure regarding the undesignated basin scope. 32. Include within section 4.6, 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. 38. After review of the drainage report – the report indicates that all basins proposed are to function as both retention and detention basins. As such, rename the basins throughout the Development Package plan set to carry the designations as Ret/Det basins accordingly. This is crucial for basin mapping and inspections. 39. 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 any retention/detention basins, outlet structures, and any riprap erosion protection. This section should immediately follow the Procedures/Methodology section. [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.2.E] 40. 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] a. As work is shown to experience regulatory flows (Greater than 100 CFS), a Floodplain Use Permit from the City of Tucson will be required. 41. 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. [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.6.C] 42. 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. 43. Provide applicable calculations and analysis used for the intended swale design proposed at the eastern boundary. [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.5.C] 44. The report does not demonstrate drain-down compliance for the proposed basins 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. (Refer to subsequent Geotechnical comment) a. As the basins proposed show greater than 9-inches of retention volume, infiltration testing requirements apply 45. Hydrologic Data Sheets - Revise the contributing area factor (Fac) on all Existing-condition hydrologic data sheets from 0.90 to 1.0. 46. Erosion Hazard Setback Analysis — Unnamed Wash - An Erosion Hazard Setback (EHS) analysis section is absent from the drainage report. In accordance with City of Tucson Drainage Manual Section 7.4, an EHS analysis is required in association with the unnamed wash adjacent to the subject property to the north. The EHS analysis shall be incorporated as a dedicated section within the drainage report. All regulated setback boundaries resulting from this analysis shall be depicted on all applicable plan sheets in a surveyable manner. This will be important, as a verified TSMS node upstream of this wash shows a recorded flow of ~1440 CFS. a. The report should be revised with an updated off-site flows analysis section to better capture this required analysis. Geotechnical Comments: 47. 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. 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). It will need to be demonstrated that drain down times are compliant [DSSDR Section 4.5] If basins do not demonstrate proper drain-down, redesign will be required. 48. Regarding the retaining wall proposed directly north oof detention basin A - When a wall is proposed within 5 feet of the horizontal location of the 100-year water depth, a report from an engineer registered in the State of Arizona shall be provided prior to approval of the construction permit that contains at least the following: a. The appropriate minimum setback from the top of slope; and b. Specific structural design requirements with details. |
||
| 08/10/2026 | CDRC Review Coordinator Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC added Addressing, ADOT, SWG,PAG, USPS, and TEP to the workflow. FYI Notice sent to SWG, PAG, USPS and TEP. | ||
| 08/10/2026 | External Reviewers - Pima Association of Governments Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI Notice email sent. No further action is required. | ||
| 08/11/2026 | External Reviewers - Pima County Addressing Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | Good afternoon, Pima County Addressing approves TD-DEV-0726-00193 Please note: The wrong address was used on the cover sheet of the plan set. The proper address is 3170 W EL Camino Del Cerro. Thank you, David Wilging Planner I - Addressing Division Pima County Development Services 201 N. Stone Avenue 1st Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701 520-724-6381 |
||
| 08/10/2026 | External Reviewers - Southwest Gas Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI Notice email sent. No further action is required. | ||
| 08/10/2026 | External Reviewers - Tucson Electric Power (TEP) Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI Notice email sent. No further action is required. | ||
| 08/10/2026 | External Reviewers - United States Postal Service (USPS) Standard | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI Notice email sent. No further action is required. | ||
| 08/17/2026 | Historic | REVIEW COMPLETED | This parcel is located within an Archaeological Sensitivity Zone. Per A.R.S. §41-865, if human remains or funerary objects are encountered on private land, ground disturbing activities must immediately cease and the Arizona State Museum Repatriation Office (asm-repatriation@email.arizona.edu) must be contacted. | ||
| 08/06/2026 | OK to Submit - Engineering Fast | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 08/10/2026 | OK to Submit - Zoning Fast | REVIEW COMPLETED |