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-0726-00204
Parcel: 13205015Y

Address:
3330 E 36TH ST

Review Status: In Review

Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.1

Permit Number - TD-DEV-0726-00204
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.1
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 External Reviewers - Tucson Airport Authority Standard PENDING ASSIGNMENT
N/A NPPO Standard PENDING ASSIGNMENT
N/A ROW Engineering Review Standard PENDING ASSIGNMENT
N/A Site Engineering Standard PENDING ASSIGNMENT Pending Union Pacific Review, will update here upon completion of their review
N/A Site Landscape Standard PENDING ASSIGNMENT
N/A Site Zoning Standard PENDING ASSIGNMENT
07/31/2026 External Reviewers - Pima County Addressing Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT essing Review TD-DEV-0726-00204 - Addressing Review TD-DEV-0726-00204
Address : , , ,
Record Type : Addressing
Document Filename : Plan Set
Reviewer Contact Information:
Corrections in the following table need to be applied before a plan is approved
Review Report - Resubmittal Requested
Application Number: P26AD00604
Comment ID Comment Date Corrections
Needed
Page Ref Reviewer : Department Review Comments
DSD Addressing
1 07/31/262026 Yes TP01_Develop
ment Plan
David Wilging : DSD Addressing 1
2 07/31/262026 Yes TP01_Develop
ment Plan
David Wilging : DSD Addressing 2
General Comments
Pima County Public Works
201 N. Stone Ave.
Tucson, AZ 85701
If you have any questions please call 520- 724-6490 for an appointment to discuss this notice. If following discussions with staff you still disagree with the below listed deficiencies,
you may appeal to the Building Official in accordance with Pima County Code 15.04.060 by submitting the form posted on our web site with payment of appeal fee prior to permit
application expiration. Disputes about the interpretation of the Zoning Code may be appealed to a Pima County Board of Adjustment under A.R.S. § 11 -816 and P.C.C. § 18.93.060.
Please submit all plans, calculations and specifications to us electronically via the Digital Projects page in the online portal.
Re-Submittal Procedures
Please submit all documents using Citizen Access at permits.pima.gov (i.e. plans, drawings, calculations, quantities, exhibits, photographs, letters, etc.).
1. Please go to permits.pima.gov and login to your account to access review comments and resubmit.
2. If you have questions or need clarification regarding comments, please contact the reviewer.
3. Provide a response to each correction comment.
4. To resubmit, upload revised full plan set.
Should the resubmittal not completely address this request for corrections, the application maybe denied requiring a new application and payment all applicable
review fees in accordance withA.R.S. § 11-1605.
08/20/2026 Site Engineering Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT Permit Activity Number: TD-DEV-0726-00204 (1st Review)
Project: Proposed development of 3 speculative industrial buildings.
Location: 3330 E 36TH ST
Review Date: 8/20/2026
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 development package case number (TD-DEV-0726-00204) adjacent to the title block on each sheet of the plan set. [AM 2-06.3.3]
2. 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]
a. Ensure this remains consistent across the entire plan set.
b. The sheet index will have to be revised to adjust for a continuous numbering system rather than a grouped system.
3. 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]
4. Provide the general note: “Any Proposed signs will be approved per separate permit” [AM 2-06.4.7]
5. 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.
Waste Management Comments:
6. After review of the plans provided – it is unclear how the site proposes to manage both trash and recycling. Revise the plans to demonstrate where enclosures will be provided, applicable clearance requirements, and address all subsequent waste management comments.
7. Provide 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.

Grading and Drainage Comments:
11. Grading plan sheets – Revise all grading plan sheets to provide sufficient dimensions relating to the widths of the proposed basin bottom areas, parking spaces, PAALs.
12. Revise all plan view grading sheets to show the footprints of all existing structures along the perimeter of the entire site – This mainly will apply to plan view sheets C3.2 & C3.4.
a. Ensure to delineate the setback distance between the existing structures & the proposed drainage infrastructure (DET/RET basins) on sheets C3.2 & C3.4.
13. Clarification Required – Keynote #2 references “Proposed future improvement” – Is it intended to have phases of construction for this portion of the project (North central area)? If Phasing is to be pursued, a phasing plan will need to be provided to show areas to be completed under which planned phase.
a. It will need to be enforced that it will be required that the site function through the entirety of each phase – including drainage infrastructure, vehicle area containment.
14. Provide a descriptor box adjacent to all proposed basin 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.
15. Keynote #18 –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.
d. The grading plan (sheet 4) – denote the intended length of the proposed riprap & provide a width and length dimension for the basin
16. Keynote #28 – Provide a construction detail for the proposed headwall(s) proposed as seen on sheet C3.3
a. Provide a W-E Cross-section detail that includes proposed elevations, extent of proposed erosion protection, and applicable dimensions.
17. 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.
18. 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 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:
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.
19. Regarding the Channel spillway shown discharging into Detention Basin 1 (Sheet C3.4) – Provide:
a. A width dimension to the concrete channel shown with associated underground drainage piping
b. A cross-section detail going SW-NE across the proposed channel to show dimensions, proposed vs. existing elevations, and vertical separation between the channel bottom and the underground infrastructure.
20. Update all Grading plan sheets respectively – Update plan view to provide call-out references to the details provided on Sheet C3.15 to their intended site component.
21. Northwest property boundary (Sheet C3.4) – Demonstrate on Planview how the proposed 28.4% sloped drop will be effectively managed. The plans reference keynote #19 as landscaped area, but this will require slope treatment to prevent erosion from occurring.
a. Regarding the geotechnical report on Slope Stability – The geotechnical engineer should be included for the proposed slope treatment
22. Regarding Proposed Headwall at Western project boundary (Sheet C3.7) - Provide a W-E Cross-section detail that includes proposed elevations, extent of proposed erosion protection, and applicable dimensions.
23. 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].
24. Regarding all proposed basins – update all basin name/labels to include whether they are Detention, retention, or Detention & Retention basins – This information is necessary for basin mapping.
25. Clarification required – on grading plan (Sheet C3.10) There is no reference by keynote or plan set legend regarding the arrow path shown in between the tracks and future building #3. Update Plan set legend to include this linework & update grading plan sheets to provide an effectively keynote/call-out to indicate if this is a proposed swale vs. just a flow path.
26. Existing Drainage infrastructure – Provide keynote/call-outs for all existing drainage infrastructure as deduced by line work shown on grading plan (Sheet C3.13)
27. 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.
28. Cross-Section detail 5 (Sheet C3.17) – Revise the detail to delineate the distance between the 25’ drive access and the proposed RR Tracks.
a. Do the same for Detail 6 (C3.17)
29. 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 1 (Sheet C3.16)
30. The Drainage report discusses the proposal of a drywell infiltration system – It is not clear on plan view across both the grading and site plan sheets. Refer to subsequent Drainage Report comment for the drywell for further action items
31. Please provide storm underground piping system profiles.
32. First-Flush Sediment Basins required [Drainage Manual 14.2.8]:
a. Provide a sediment/first-flush basin upstream of Detention Basin 1 & all temporary basins prior to discharge entering the main basins.
b. Provide and label sediment traps upstream of all proposed detention facilities. Note: Sediment traps are not required for retention basins.


Site & PAAL Comments:
33. The site plan does not dimension all existing and proposed curb return radii at internal drive aisles and roadway access points. Provide dimensions for all curb return radii at the following locations:
a. All proposed site access driveways at their intersections with Wingate BLVD
b. Confirm that all curb return radii comply with the dimensional requirements of Chapter 25, Streets and Sidewalks Standards and UDC 7.4.6.E.1.a. Where existing curb returns are to remain, document the existing radii and confirm compliance or identify any required modifications.
34. A sidewalk is required adjacent and parallel to any access lane or PAAL on the side where buildings are located. [TSM 7-01.4.1.B] Ensure that compliance with vertical separation standards are addressed for the new sidewalks [TSM 7-01.4.2]
a. This will need to be addressed for the Western portion of Building A
b. This will need to be addressed for the Western portion of Building B
35. 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]
a. After review of the site plan sheets – the plans show the sidewalks being 5’-6” but the scaling on the grading sheets showed 6’-6”. If the sidewalks are the 6’-6”, the wheels stops will not be required but site plan view sheets must have updated dimensions denoted.
36. Keynote 03-007 – Update the keynote to remove the optional verbiage (Refer to previous comment regarding sidewalk requirements Above)
37. Dimension the back-up spur distance/space shown at the Southern western edge of the site’s “Future Improvement” parking area as seen on plan view sheet AS-101 [7.4.6.F.4.].
38. Site plan (Sheet AS-102) - Revise the site plan provided to provide Sight visibility triangles for all site entrances: 36th ST is designated as a Collector Road and Country Club RD is designated as an Arterial Road. These 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.
b. Looking at sheets AS-102 & AS-103– the provided SVT’s are shown incorrectly – Refer to the figures provided within the referenced code and update accordingly.
39. Site Plan sheets – Review and revise the plan view sheets to dimension the proposed crosswalks as referenced by keynote 32-006

Drainage Report Comments:

40. The report does not demonstrate Pg 5 drain-down compliance for the proposed basins nor underground infiltrator chambers 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 required infiltration testing completed. (Refer to Subsequent Geotechnical Comment).
41. Existing Condition (2.0) – The report points to using NOAA rainfall depths – This will require revision as it is required to use the required 3-inches for the areally reduced one-hour rainfall depth for calculations found in COT Drainage Manual Table 4.1.
42. 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]
43. 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 are noted as deferred to the Final Drainage Report (Appendix D). This is not acceptable for the current review. 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 areally reduced one-hour rainfall depth for calculations found in COT Drainage Manual Table 4.1.
44. The proposal for the use of drywell(s) for this proposed development has been denied. It will be required that revisions be made to the report to remove the entire scope of the proposed drywell system. It should be noted that no indication of a drywell was found on plan set during review, but if there are mentions, please remove those accordingly.
a. Justification – With the proposed use of use of Stormwater Infiltration Systems, it is required that the project demonstrate how all proposed subsurface components by addressing each point is being met by the proposed design for the applicable infiltration standards as outlined below. :
1. DSSDR Section 4.13 — 11 individual standards, all must be addressed.
2. Drainage Manual Section 14.5 — 10 individual standards, all must be addressed.
b. The project cannot meet all applicable requirements due to the railroad track and industrial use as outlined in the City of Tucson Drainage Manual 14.5.1
c. If there is issue with this determination and the applicant would like to pursue variance from this denial, it is the applicant’s option to bring this proposal to floodplain administration as this constitutes a use of underground retention and requires written approval from the Floodplain Administrator prior to acceptance of the drainage report. Please contact the Floodplain Administration directly to initiate this process:
• Alfred Zuniga: Alfred.Zuniga@tucsonaz.gov
• Austin Wesnitzer: Austin.Wesnitzer@tucsonaz.gov
• Elizabeth Eberbach: Elizabeth.Eberbach@tucsonaz.gov
45. 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]
46. 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.
47. The report does not identify the project's watershed. The project site is located within the Tucson Arroyo watershed, which is considered a non-designated basin, therefore balanced basin standards must be met. This must be explicitly stated in the report per Drainage Manual Section 2.3.1.6.A.1.
a. Revise Section 2.0 (Existing Condition) 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
48. Summary and Conclusions Section - The report does not contain a complete 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
49. 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.
50. Provide applicable calculations and analysis used for the intended concreate channel designs proposed at the Western boundary. [Drainage Manual 2.3.1.5.C]
51. Include within section 5.4, 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.



Geotechnical Report Comments:
52. 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). 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.

SWPPP Comments:
53. No labeled concentrated flow points / drainage arrows tied to BMPs - The plan shows no flow arrows around the perimeter. Revise SWPPP plan view accordingly.
54. 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). Ensure that proposed Storage/Staging Area will be sufficient to accommodate the needs for construction activities on this size of project.
55. No emergency contact information — operator name, 24-hour emergency contact, and site supervisor should appear on the sheet
56. No inspection schedule note — at minimum, a note referencing the required inspection frequency (per CGP) should be included on the sheet.
57. 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.

Geotechnical Report notes:
• Pg 8 – Discusses the soils indicated a moderate to high collapse potential within Lab settings – Engineer states the natural sites soils will exhibit variable low to moderate collapse potential when wetted
07/27/2026 CDRC Application Completeness Express REVIEW COMPLETED
07/29/2026 CDRC Review Coordinator Express REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC added Adot, Addressing, TAA, PAG, USPS, SWG, and TEP to the workflow. FYI notice sent out to PAG, USPS, SWG, and TEP.
07/29/2026 External Reviewers - Pima Association of Governments Standard REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC sent FYI Notice email sent. No further action is required.
07/29/2026 External Reviewers - Southwest Gas Standard REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC sent FYI Notice email sent. No further action is required.
07/29/2026 External Reviewers - Tucson Electric Power (TEP) Standard REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC sent FYI Notice email sent. No further action is required.
07/29/2026 External Reviewers - United States Postal Service (USPS) Standard REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC sent FYI Notice email sent. No further action is required.
08/18/2026 Fire New Construction Standard REVIEW COMPLETED
07/27/2026 OK to Submit - Engineering Fast REVIEW COMPLETED
07/29/2026 OK to Submit - Zoning Fast REVIEW COMPLETED
08/06/2026 ROW Review REVIEW COMPLETED