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-0726-00203
Parcel: 10707021B

Review Status: Requires Resubmit

Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2

Permit Number - TD-DEV-0726-00203
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.2
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
08/19/2026 External Reviewers - Pima County Addressing Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT Pima County Addressing is returning TD-DEV-0726-00203 with the attached comments, for corrections.

Thank you,

David Wilging
Planner I - Addressing Division
Pima County Development Services
201 N. Stone Avenue 1st Floor
Tucson, Arizona 85701
520-724-6381

**Please go to your attachment section to locate the referrence resubmittal letter.
09/09/2026 NPPO Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT Provide a NPPO or NPPO waiver with the formal submittal of the landscape plans.

Thank you.
Chad Keller, PLA
chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov
09/11/2026 ROW Engineering Review Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT 1. Existing paved driveway accesses along N. Fairview Avenue shall be improved to comply with the current City of Tucson DTM driveway standard. Construct concrete driveway aprons and provide an ADA-compliant pedestrian access route through each driveway crossing. Provide dimensions of new driveway aprons.
2. Show pedestrian connection to property
3.TSM 10-01.4.1 requires 6 ft minimum along collector and arterial streets. Show on plans a minimum 6' wide sidewalk.
09/04/2026 Site Engineering Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT Permit Activity Number: TD-DEV-0726-00203 (1st Review)
Project: New construction of the PYDC Career Pivot Center, including the building, associated site improvements, utility connections, parking, landscaping, exterior lighting, drainage, and related infrastructure. The facility will provide workforce development, vocational training, education, and support spaces for program participants.
Location: 2455 N FAIRVIEW AV
Review Date: 9/4/2026
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. General note #12– Revise the keynote provided, the City of Tucson adopted The IBC 2024 with ICC A117.1 2017 edition at the beginning of 2026
3. The provided plan set show 22 sheets on the provided sheet index – but the actual plan set file only contained 12 sheets. Revise accordingly.
a. Ensure to remain consistent with comment #1.
4. Provide expansion associated with the site – If expansion of GFA exceeds 25% - full site compliance will be triggered – Refer to subsequent sub comments if expansion compliance is triggered:
a. Provide and dimension the back-up spur distance/space shown at the Northern edge of the site’s parking area as seen on plan view sheet C3.1 [7.4.6.F.4.].

Site & PAAL Comments:
5. Wheel stops - 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. Update site plan Planview (Sheet C3.1) to show this dimension.
6. 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.
a. This will need to be reviewed and addressed especially regarding the sidewalk shown directly south of the ADA parking spaces as flows are allowed to flow over the sidewalk since the pavement is flush.
7. 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 existing portion of the site to the expanded southern portion as well as to ROW frontage along Fairview AV.
8. Revise the parking calculations provided on sheet C3.1 to demonstrate compliance with applicable ADA and van ADA parking spaces.
9. Clarification required – more Planview information will be required at the Southeast corner of the site – minimal information has been provided, and it is unclear what this area will look like or function as.
10. Clarification required – The plans show a vehicle access gate in between the new building and existing building, what will be the intended use of the Western portion of the site.
Waste Management Comments:
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. Update the waste stream calculations provided on cover sheet accordingly.
Grading & Drainage Comments:
12. Provide a dimensioned cross-section detail going North-South at the southern location directly west of the trash enclosure – the path for drainage within this area is questionable.
a. Provide more spot elevation information within this area as well.
13. Grading plan (Sheet C4.1) – its not entirely clear based on the spot elevations provided – demonstrate that vertical separation requirements are met per TSM 7-01.4.2 between the PAAL’s and pedestrian areas across the site. The TC vs FS elevations should demonstrate that the vehicle use area is effectively contained as required. [UDC 7.4.6.H]. This applies to the sidewalk shown directly north of the new building – going West-East.
a. Ensure to update/revise Cross-Section detail B accordingly.
14. The grading sheet does not consistently show erosion protection information at all inlet and outlet structures as required by DSSDR Section 4.8.1.4. Erosion protection must be provided at every 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:
a. Revise all grading plan view sheets to effectively show erosion protection dimensions (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 well below the finished grade of the basin floor. This will need to be addressed for both the inlet and outlet for the newly proposed CMP Culverts proposed.
Geotechnical Comments:
15. 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.
Drainage Report Comments:
16. 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
17. 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]
18. Section I (Long-Term Maintenance Responsibility) - 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]
19. Summary and Conclusions Section - The report does not contain a Summary and Conclusions section as required by Drainage Manual Section 2.3.1.7. This section should be added and shall include, at minimum, the following:
a. A concise summary of all significant analyses and conclusions presented in the report, including compliance with City of Tucson first flush retention and critical basin detention requirements
b. A certification by the Engineer of Record, under seal, that the proposed drainage plan — once properly constructed — will adhere to all applicable Local, State, and Federal Floodplain Regulations
20. Provide all City of Tucson Hydrologic Data sheets within the drainage document used for computing the 2-, 10-, & 100-year peak discharges.
a. Ensure to use the required 3-inches for the areally reduced one-hour rainfall depth for calculations found in COT Drainage Manual Table 4.1.
21. 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.”
22. 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.
09/09/2026 Site Landscape Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
REVIEWER: CHAD KELLER, PLA
SITE LANDSCAPE/NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION SECTION

PROJECT: NEW CONSTRUCTION OF THE PYDC CAREER PIVOT CENTER
ACTIVITY NO: TD-DEV-0726-00203
ADDRESS: 2455 N FAIRVIEW AV
ZONING: LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE (I-1)
9.9.2026

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 sheet index calls out landscape plans as part of this development package. The landscape plans have not been included with this submittal. Please provide the landscape plans and a review with comments will be provided.

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

3. Include the Activity Number TD-DEV-0726-00203 on all sheets in the plan set.

Thank you.

CHAD KELLER - PLA
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

CITY OF TUCSON - PDSD
CHAD.KELLER@TUCSONAZ.GOV
520.837.4923
08/17/2026 CDRC Review Coordinator Express REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC added Addressing, ADOT, PAG, USPS, SWG, and TEP to the workflow. FYI, sent to PAG, USPS, SWG, and TEP
08/24/2026 Commercial Plumbing Standard REVIEW COMPLETED
08/31/2026 External Reviewers - Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Standard REVIEW COMPLETED ADOT has no comments.

Thanks, Rick Freije
08/17/2026 External Reviewers - Pima Association of Governments Standard REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC sent FYI Notice email sent. No further action is required.
08/17/2026 External Reviewers - Southwest Gas Standard REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC sent FYI Notice email sent. No further action is required.
08/17/2026 External Reviewers - Tucson Electric Power (TEP) Standard REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC sent FYI Notice email sent. No further action is required.
08/17/2026 External Reviewers - United States Postal Service (USPS) Standard REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC sent FYI Notice email sent. No further action is required.
09/08/2026 Fire New Construction Standard REVIEW COMPLETED
08/10/2026 OK to Submit - Engineering Fast REVIEW COMPLETED
08/13/2026 OK to Submit - Zoning Fast REVIEW COMPLETED
09/14/2026 Site Zoning Standard REVIEW COMPLETED