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-0726-00212
Parcel: Unknown

Address: Unknown

Review Status: In Review

Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.1

Permit Number - TD-DEV-0726-00212
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.1
Review Status: In Review
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
N/A CDRC Post Review Express PENDING ASSIGNMENT
N/A ROW Engineering Review Standard PENDING ASSIGNMENT
N/A ROW Review PENDING ASSIGNMENT
08/28/2026 Commercial Plumbing Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT ACTIVITY NO. TD-DEV-0726-00212

Submit your revised drawings along with a detailed response letter, which states how all comments were addressed. Review will not proceed without the response letter. The submitted documents were incomplete and a thorough plan review could not be performed. Please be aware, new comments may arise with the next review.

If you have any questions about these review comments, I can be reached at Sean.Severson@tucsonaz.gov.

COMMENTS:

1. The cleanout on the 6-inch building sewer is shown as a manhole on the utility plan but is identified as a cleanout in Sewer Key Note 4. Please clarify
2. The RIM elevation of the nearest upstream manhole is 2569.30 and the FFE is 2569.50. Since the FFE is less than 12 inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole, a backwater valve is required. Reference: Section 714.1, IPC 2024, as amended by the City of Tucson.
3. A private sewer collection system that includes manholes, force mains, or lift stations, will require a review of the system design by the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality prior to obtaining a building permit from the City of Tucson. In addition, the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality requires the Engineer of Record to conduct specific inspections during construction. Submit the plans that have been approved by the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality for approval. Reference Title 18, R18-9-E302, 4.02 General Permit, Arizona Administrative Code.
08/11/2026 External Reviewers - Pima County Addressing Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT Reviewer Name Reviewer Email Reviewer Phone
David Wilging david.wilging@pima.gov 520-724-6381
Report Date: 08/10/2026
Description : DP For Raytheon - per TD-DEV-0726-00212
null - Site Review; Commercial Development
Address : 770 AERO PARK BL, TUCSON, AZ, 85756
Record Type : Addressing
Document Filename : 1_Plan Set - 5826-DP_2026-07-31.pdf
Reviewer Contact Information:
Corrections in the following table need to be applied before a plan is approved
Review Report - Resubmittal Requested
Application Number: P26AD00607
Comment ID Comment Date Corrections
Needed
Page Ref Reviewer : Department Review Comments
DSD Addressing
2 08/10/262026 Yes 1 David Wilging : DSD Addressing Raytheon will be using building number 946
3 08/10/262026 Yes 1 David Wilging : DSD Addressing 1151 E. Hermans Rd Building 946
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.
Powered by PDF Generator API
DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE for
RAYTHEON FAC25164
1. THE EXISTING ZONE IS I-2, NO ZONE CHANGE REQUESTED FOR THIS
PROJECT.
2. THE EXISTING USE IS VACANT. THE PROPOSED USE OF THE
DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL AND IS SUBJECT TO USE
SPECIFIC STANDARD 4.9.13.Q.
3. THE GROSS SITE AREA IS 33,493,352 SQUARE FEET, OR 768.87
ACRES.
4. THE TOTAL BUILDING GFA IS 200,000 SF.
5. THE TOTAL ON-SITE DISTURBED AREA FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT IS
APPROXIMATELY 614,600 SF (14.11 AC). THE TOTAL OFF-SITE
DISTURBED AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 0 SF (0 AC).
6. THE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER FOR THIS PROJECT IS
140-43-013E. 7. 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 SITE PLAN AS SHOWN HEREON, NOW AND IN
THE FUTURE, BY REASON OF FLOODING, FLOWAGE, EROSION, OR
DAMAGE CAUSED BY WATER, WHETHER SURFACE FLOOD OR
RAINFALL.
8. DRAINAGE WILL REMAIN IN ITS NATURAL STATE AND WILL NOT BE
ALTERED, DISTURBED, OR OBSTRUCTED OTHER THAN AS SHOWN
ON THIS SITE PLAN.
9. NO STRUCTURE OR VEGETATION SHALL BE LOCATED OR
MAINTAINED SO AS TO INTERFERE WITH THE SIGHT VISIBILITY
TRIANGLES IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. 10-01.5.0, SIGHT
VISIBILITY, OF THE TECHNICAL STANDARDS MANUAL.
10. ANY RELOCATION, MODIFICATION, ETC., OF EXISTING UTILITIES
AND/OR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS NECESSITATED BY THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL BE AT NO EXPENSE TO THE
PUBLIC.
11. ON-SITE SANITARY SEWERS WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE
CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND MAINTAINED ON A PRIVATE
BASIS, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN APPROVED OPERATION
AND MAINTENANCE PLAN, IF REQUIRED. THE LOCATION AND
METHOD OF CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY
SEWER IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PIMA
COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT
AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTAL OF PLUMBING/BUILDING PLANS.
12. ANY WASTEWATER DISCHARGED INTO THE PUBLIC SANITARY
SEWERAGE SYSTEM SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
INDUSTRIAL WASTE ORDINANCE (PIMA COUNTY ORDINANCE NO.
1991-140, OR AS AMENDED).
13. MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED PRIVATE
SANITARY SEWER TO ITS POINT OF CONNECTION TO THE
EXISTING PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
EACH AND EVERY PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN THIS
DEVELOPMENT.
14. A PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE SECURED FROM
PIMA COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER RECLAMATION
DEPARTMENT BEFORE BEGINNING ANY WORK ON THIS PROJECT.
15. ACCESSIBLE STANDARDS MUST BE MET PER 2024 IBC, CHAPTER
11, AND 2017 ICC A117.1.
- PROVIDE A PERMANENTLY POSTED METAL SIGN
CONFORMING TO TUCSON CODE SECTION 20-222, THE
INTERNATIONAL HANDICAP SYMBOL PAINTED IN THE SPACE,
AND AN ACCESSIBLE AISLE AT 2% MAXIMUM SLOPE LEADING
TO ADJACENT SIDEWALK AT EACH ACCESSIBLE PARKING
SPACE. SAID METAL SIGN SHALL INCLUDE THE
"INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESS" AND BOTTOM OF SIGN
SHALL BE LOCATED 7' ABOVE THE PARKING SURFACE. VAN
ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES SHALL HAVE AN ADDITIONAL
SIGN MOUNTED BELOW THE "INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF
ACCESS" IDENTIFYING THE SPACE AS "VAN ACCESSIBLE".
- THE MINIMUM WIDTH OF THE HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE ROUTE
SHALL BE 36", THE MAXIMUM SLOPE SHALL BE 8.33% AT
RAMPS (6" MAXIMUM RISE) AND 5% ELSEWHERE WITHOUT
HANDRAILING AND WITH HANDRAILING WHERE GREATER
THAN 5%. THE MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPE SHALL BE 2%. NO
LEVEL CHANGES OR STEPS SHALL BE PERMITTED ALONG THIS
ROUTE.
16. DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS PER U.D.C. SEC. 6.3 FOR I-2 ZONE:
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALCULATION: N/A
SITE COVERAGE CALCULATION: N/A
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT = 140'
ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT = 55'
BUILDING SETBACKS:
REQUIRED PROVIDED
NORTH - 0' N/A
EAST - 0' N/A
SOUTH - 0' N/A
WEST - 10'* N/A
*FROM FUTURE R.O.W.
17. PARKING REQUIREMENTS:
MOTOR VEHICLE: 1 SPACE PER 300 SF GFA
TOTAL REQUIRED = 200,000/300 = 667 SPACES
TOTAL PROVIDED = 803 SPACES
ACCESSIBLE SPACES REQUIRED = 16 SPACES
ACCESSIBLE SPACES PROVIDED = 17 SPACES*
*17 OF THE PROVIDED ACCESSIBLE SPACES ARE VAN ACCESSIBLE.
ELECTRIC VEHICLE SPACES:
TOTAL EV INSTALLED REQUIRED = 0 SPACES
TOTAL EV INSTALLED PROVIDED = 40 SPACES*
*2 ACCESSIBLE SPACES PROVIDED OF 40
TOTAL EV READY REQUIRED (5%) = (803x0.05) = 40 SPACES
TOTAL EV READY PROVIDED = 0 SPACES**
**0 ACCESSIBLE SPACES PROVIDED OF 40
TOTAL EV CAPABLE REQUIRED (15%) = (803x0.15) = 120 SPACES
TOTAL EV CAPABLE PROVIDED = 120 SPACES***
***EV CAPABLE SPACES TO BE SHOWN ON SITE ELECTRICAL PLAN IN
BUILDING PERMIT PACKAGE.
BICYCLE PARKING:
SHORT TERM: 1 SPACE PER 20,000 SF GFA (2 MIN.)
TOTAL REQUIRED = 200,000/20,000 = 10 SPACES
TOTAL PROVIDED = 10 SPACES
LONG TERM: 1 SPACE PER 6,000 SF GFA (2 MIN.)
TOTAL REQUIRED = 200,000/6,000 = 33 SPACES
TOTAL PROVIDED = 33 SPACES
LOADING ZONES REQUIRED = 2 SPACES
LOADING ZONES PROVIDED (TYPE A) = 2 SPACES
18. PARKING AREA LIGHTING IS PROPOSED WITHIN THIS DEVELOPMENT. NO
MONUMENT SIGN PROPOSED.
19. MAIL SERVICE TO BE LOCATED INSIDE THE BUILDING. 20. WASTE STREAM CALCULATION:
PER TSM 8-01.8.0 THIS SITE PRODUCES APPROXIMATELY 260 TONS OF SOLID
WASTE PER YEAR (EQUATING TO 3,333 GALLONS PER WEEK).
A MINIMUM OF 16.5 CUBIC-YARDS (TOTAL) OF TRASH WILL BE REQUIRED
TO BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE EACH WEEK.
THIS WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY ONE 8-CUBIC-YARD TRASH BIN AND ONE
8-CUBIC-YARD RECYCLING BIN BEING PICKED UP TWICE PER WEEK.
21. ANY PROPOSED SIGNS WILL BE APPROVED PER A SEPARATE PERMIT.
22. THE EASTERN PIMA COUNTY TRAILS SYSTEM MASTER PLAN DOES NOT
SHOW ANY TRAILS ON OR ADJACENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT SITE.
23. THE PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE CRITERIA FOR: UDC
SEC. 5.4, MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES SETBACK ZONE (MS&R); UDC SEC.
5.6, (AIRPORT ENVIRONS ZONE (AEZ).
24. ANY WORK WITHIN CITY OF TUCSON RIGHT-OF-WAY WILL REQUIRE A
RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT, OR A PRIVATE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT.
CONTACT CITY OF TUCSON PERMITS AND CODES (791-4259) FOR
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
25. DEVELOPER WILL PROCESS EASEMENT REQUESTS FOR ANY REQUIRED NEW
EASEMENTS AND FOR ANY REQUIRED RELEASES OF EXISTING EASEMENTS
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
ADVANTECH FACILITY DESIGN INC.
3280 EAST HEMISPHERE LOOP, SUITE 110
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85706
ATTN: CHARLES GIROUD
PH: (520)
E: cgiroud@advantechae.com
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
3945 EAST FORT LOWELL ROAD, SUITE 111
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85712
ATTN: MARK FELLINGER, PLA
PH: (520) 795-1000
E: mfellinger@rickengineering.com
PROJECT OVERVIEW PLAN
GENERAL NOTES GENERAL NOTES (cont.)
ARCHITECT
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Contact Arizona 811 at least two full
working days before you begin excavation
Call 811 or click Arizona811.com RAYTHEON FAC25164 1151 EAST HERMANS ROAD TUCSON, ARIZONA 85756 520-795-1000 rickengineering.com 3945 E FORT LOWELL RD #111 TUCSON, AZ 85712 SAN DIEGO ORANGE RIVERSIDE SACRAMENTO SAN LUIS OBISPO SANTA CLARITA PHOENIX TUCSON LAS VEGAS DENVER
TD-DEV-____
17
Registered Professional Engine r (Civil)
CER TIFIC A T E NO.
. .20
ARIZONA, U.S.A.
Da t e Si gned
70059
BLAKE
JUNAK
07 31
26
THIS
PROJECT
IN THE NW 1
4 OF THE SW 1
4 OF SECTION 19, T. 15 S., R. 14 E.,
G.&S.R.M., PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA
LOCATION MAP
NORTH
3" = 1 MILE
E HERMANS RD
E AERO PARK BL
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD S NOGALES HY
24
25
30
19
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
3945 EAST FORT LOWELL ROAD, SUITE 111
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85712
ATTN: SKIP POMEROY, AZ RLS #35544
PH: (520) 795-1000
E: spomeroy@rickengineering.com
SURVEYOR COVER SHEET
CIY OF TUCSON REAl REAL ESTATE DIVISION
P.O. BOX 27210
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85726
ATTN: PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
PH: (520)
E:
OWNER/DEVELOPER
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
3945 EAST FORT LOWELL ROAD, SUITE 111
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85712
ATTN: BLAKE JUNAK
PH: (520) 795-1000
E: bjunak@rickengineering.com
CIVIL ENGINEER
1
1151 EAST HERMANS ROAD
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85756
SITE ADDRESS
SCALE: 1"=200'
E AERO PARK BL (PUBLIC)
N S NOGALES HY (PUBLIC)
LEGEND
C
P
TC
SVT
FFE
R
GB
R.O.W.
FG
CL
EXISTING PROPOSED
SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY
RIGHT-OF-WAY
OTHER PARCEL LINE
FLOW-LINE
EASEMENT
CONTOUR
CURB
ASPHALT
CONCRETE
PAINT STRIPE
RIPRAP
FENCE
RAILING
WALL
SIGN
STREET/SITE LIGHT
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
COMMUNICATION
GAS PIPE
POWER POLE
ELECTRIC PEDESTAL
ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
SEWER PIPE
WATER PIPE
FIRE SERVICE PIPE
SPOT ELEVATION
GRADING LIMITS
100 YR. FLOOD PLAIN LIMIT
SEWER MANHOLE
SEWER CLEANOUT
WATER METER
BACKFLOW PREVENTER / CHECK VALVE
WATER VALVE
FIRE HYDRANT
FIRE DEPT. CONNECTION
SURVEY MONUMENT
PARKING SPACE COUNT
ZONING DIVISION
SIGHT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE
RIGHT-OF-WAY
CENTERLINE
RADIUS
PAVEMENT (ASPHALT)
CONCRETE
TOP OF CURB
FINISHED GRADE
GRADE BREAK
FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION
EXISTING PROPOSED
8
A.P.N. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
BCSM BRASS CAP SURVEY MONUMENT
SF; AC SQUARE FEET; ACRES
(99.99P) 99.99P
ROOF DOWNSPOUT
BOLLARD
W
FC
BF
EP
C-1
EROSION HAZARD SETBACK
FEMA FLOODWAY LIMITS
Raytheon will be using building number 946
1151 E. Hermans
Rd Building 946
09/01/2026 External Reviewers - Tucson Airport Authority Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT August 31, 2026
Planning and Development Services
City of Tucson
201 North Stone Avenue
Tucson, AZ. 85701
RE: TD-DEV-0726-00212, 1st Submittal, Raytheon FAC25164 / Received August 10, 2026
To whom this may concern,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on TD-DEV-0726-00212, 1st Submittal, a
development plan for new secure lab building. This development is located in the N.W. quarter
of the S.W. quarter of Section 19, Township 15S, Range 14E, of the Gila and Salt River
Meridian. The development site occupies parcel number 140-43-013E, covers approximately
14.11 ± acres, and is zoned as Heavy Industrial Zone (I-2). The nearest major roadway
intersection is East Aero Park Boulevard and Nogales Highway, approximately 400 feet to the
northwest of the subject development. The nearest runway to this proposed development is
Runway 4/22, previously identified as Runway 3/21, which is approximately 2,400 feet to the
north of the proposed development.
This site does lie within the Tucson International Airport avigation easement requirements and
public disclosure area, FAA traffic pattern airspace, FAA Part 77 airspace, City of Tucson –
Airport Environs Overlay Zone – Airport Hazard District, and City of Tucson – Airport Environs
Overlay Zone – Height Zone 50 – 84 Feet.
Below are the responses that the FAA Pre-Screening Tool has provided on the proposed
project.
1) Based on the information you provided, you are required to file notice with the FAA. You
must submit notice at least 45 days before the start of the proposed construction or
alteration or the date an application for a construction permit is filed, whichever is
earliest.
2) Note: If you propose construction or alteration that is subject to the licensing
requirements of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), you must submit
notice to the FAA on or before the date that an application is filed with the FCC. Visit
FCC Licensing to learn more.
The Tucson Airport Authority is requiring a resubmittal of this project. The below conditions of
approval must be added into the revised notes of the development plan.
Conditions of approval:
1. “The applicant shall file FAA Form 7460 with the FAA at least 45 days before
construction activities begin unless FAA staff, with the Obstruction Evaluation / Airport
Airspace Analysis (OE/AAA), provides the project applicant with written communication
that filing FAA Form 7460 is not required. It is highly recommended that the applicant
file earlier than 45 days to provide the applicant with sufficient time to respond to any
concerns which are identified by the FAA. Any cranes which are used must also be
identified with a separate Form 7460. Please file Form 7460 at
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp”
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding this
comment letter. I can be reached by email at srobidoux@flytucson.com or by telephone at 520-
573-4811.
Respectfully,
Scott Robidoux, C.M.
Manager of Planning
08/20/2026 Fire New Construction Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT Please resubmit with the correct building construction type (I-V) to allow for proper referencing of required fire flow to proposed building.

Ryan P Johnson
Ryan.Johnson@Tucsonaz.gov
(c) 520 539-5370
08/28/2026 NPPO Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT See site landscape comments for activity number requirement on the NPPO and all sheets in the plan set. The NPPO and Riparian Mitigation Plan are coordinated and make sense. Thank you for the clear and concise plans.

CHAD KELLER, PLA
CHAD.KELLER@TUCSONAZ.GOV
08/18/2026 Site Engineering Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT Permit Activity Number: TD-DEV-0726-00212 (1st Review)
Project: Restricted Record New secure lab building for Raytheon
Location: 14043013E
Review Date: 8/18/2026
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-0726-00212) adjacent to the title block on each sheet of the plan set. [AM 2-06.4.3]
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]. Currently the cover page and subsequent sheets show X of 17.
a. Ensure this remains consistent across the entire plan set.
b. The sheet index will have to be revised to adjust for the sheets provided – There are 17 sheets shown, but the complete plan set appears to be 39 sheets. Revise accordingly.
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. Site plan (Sheet 4 NW) – Revise plan view to show existing electrical infrastructure – There appears to be existing electrical lines and associated power poles directly north of the site.
5. 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. This will need to be addressed regarding the parking spaces shown at the direct north of the new structure
b. This will need to be addressed regarding the parking spaces shown at the direct South of the new structure
6. Clarification required – Sheet 5 (N) show keynote #6 within what appears to be landscaping islands within the parking lot – Revise plan view to clarify what the correct keynote should be used at this location.
7. Plan view (Sheet 6 NE) – Looks like keynote #4 is incorrectly used towards the North to call-out what appears to be the existing sidewalk using the bollard keynote.
8. Clarification required – Plan view (Sheet 8 (S)) shows what appears to be 10’ proposed parking spaces along the East side of the new building. If these are intended to be actual parking spaces, they will need to be revised to be compliant with parking space depth requirements. [UDC 7.4.6.D] If these are intended to be used as “Motorcycle” parking, revise plan view to provide this clarification.
9. 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 at the NW corner of the proposed site.
10. Delineate the required clearance space in front of the proposed enclosure on plan view (Sheet 4 NW) – 14x40 (single), 28x40 (double)
11. 12’ Security Drive Aisle – Revise plan view to denote the intend surfacing proposed for the security drive aisle shown along the perimeter of the site.
12. The following floodplain information is required to be shown on the development package documents. Revise all applicable sheets accordingly: [AM 2-06.4.9.N & Chapter 26-8.(b).(5)]
a. Depict the 100-year flood limits with associated Water Surface Elevations (WSELs) for all flows of 100 cfs or greater.

Grading & Drainage Comments:
13. Regarding the dumped riprap at the Northwest corner near trash enclosure – Revise the plans to show this erosion protection extending to within the basin floor of the proposed basin to the north.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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. This will be critical to confirm vertical separation requirements are addressed regarding all pedestrian pathway areas.
17. Clarification required – Both the site plan and grading plan use the 3 dot - solid line linetype shown towards the North-Northwest portion of the site, but the plan set legend lacks this linetype style. Revise/Update legend accordingly.
18. Regarding the North side of new structures downspout/drainage system – Revise grading plan view sheets to provide a keynote/call-out for the downspouts that are shown to connect to the storm drain system as seen on sheet 16 (Utilities).
19. Erosion Protection – Sheet 16 shows the northern storm drain system leading towards the intended basin. Revise plan view sheets (Site, Grading, Utilities) to show applicable erosion protection for these outlets accordingly.
20. Revise the development package plan to provide 1-3 SWPPP sheets within the main plan set.
21. First-Flush Sediment Basins required [Drainage Manual 14.2.8]:
a. Provide a sediment/first-flush basin upstream of the proposed northern basin. This is mainly required as a majority of the upstream flows received will be from both natural terrain and significant parking area.
b. Provide and label sediment traps upstream of all proposed detention facilities.
22. Provide a N-S Cross-section detail bisecting the proposed northern basin:
a. Bottom width and overall top width
b. Side slopes (H:V ratio)
c. Design water surface elevation / flow depth for the design storm, with minimum freeboard clearly dimensioned
d. Relationship to adjacent features (property line, building setback, wall footings, or utilities) with offset dimensions where the basin is near the property boundary
23. Regarding the dumped riprap strips proposed at the southern side of the new structure – provide a close-up detail to better represent how this will actually look like design wise. If preferred, a cross-section detail showing the intended swale design would suffice.
Geotechnical Report comments:
24. The provided geotechnical report was completed back in 2018, for the previously developed site towards the SE of this new development. As the proposed site appears to have different soil types © as well as different surface conditions due to the regulatory limits that have existed for years, it will be required that a new site-specific geotechnical investigation report prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer is required [IBC 1803]. The report shall address soil bearing capacity, site classifications, expansive soils, groundwater conditions, necessary drainage infrastructure setbacks, and any recommendations for foundation design as applicable to the proposed construction.

Drainage Report Comments:
25. 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]
26. 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.
27. A comparative summary table presenting existing versus proposed peak discharges has not been provided. Provide a table addressing all applicable storm events (2-, 10-, and 100-year).
08/28/2026 Site Landscape Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
REVIEWER: CHAD KELLER, PLA
SITE LANDSCAPE/NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION SECTION

PROJECT: NEW SECURE LAB BUILDING FOR RAYTHEON
ACTIVITY NO: TD-DEV-0726-00212
ADDRESS: 14043013E
ZONING: INDUSTRIAL I-2
LAND USE: COMMERCIAL
8.28.26

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. Keynote number 5 on the site plan states that the existing fence is to remain in place. With this in mind is the intent to have the existing fence and the new wall/fence doubled up to enclose the border for security purposes. Fences and walls should be at rear of the border only. Add a note that explains the need for this fence for security, etc.

2. Any additional site engineering comments with regard to updating linework representation, callouts or pertinent notation information required for floodplain will need to match throughout the landscape plan set, especially on the ERR, sheet 38 of 39. Update as necessary.

3. Please add a note to the Parking Lot Tree Calculations that states that any tree within 40 linear feet of a parking space may count toward the overall ratio of 1 tree per 4 parking spaces. The tree count is over the requirement including riparian mitigation trees and other trees that are clearly within the 40 linear foot maximum distance. Reference UDC 7.6.4.B.1.a.(1) Vehicular Use Area Canopy Trees.

4. The WHIA blue dashed lines are not included within the parking lot island WHIA areas. Include the lines for clarity and completeness.

5. The grading plan is clear and concise. Include the general note on the commercial rainwater harvesting plans to see the civil grading plan and details for drainage scheme and drainage structure implementation. Use the general note that is usually provided on your commercial rainwater harvesting plans.

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

7. Include the Activity Number TD-DEV-0726-00212 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
08/21/2026 Site Zoning Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT CDRC TRANSMITTAL

FROM:
Fernando Garcia

PROJECT:
Development Package
Parcel: 140-43-013E
TD-DEV-0726-00212

TRANSMITTAL DATE: August 21, 2026
DUE DATE: August 31, 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 July 31, 2027.

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


2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS

2-06.3.12 - An index of sheets in the development package shall be provided on the first sheet.

1. COMMENT: 2-06.3.12 – Includes sheets 18-39 on the sheet index on the cover page; they are not currently included.


2-06.4.2.D - The page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx).

2. COMMENT: 2-06.4.2.D – Correct page sheet numbers for pages 1-17 to indicate they are out of 39 total sheets, and not 17 total sheets.


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.

3. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 - Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-0726-00212, adjacent to the title block on each sheet.

List the following additional applications/case numbers which apply to this property: C15-19-02 (2019 Raytheon West Annexation), C15-09-03 (2009 Raytheon Annexation District).


2-06.4.7.A.4 - Identify the existing and proposed use of the property as classified per the UDC. List all UDC sections applicable to the proposed uses.

4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 – The proposed use is listed as “Commercial” in General Note 2. “Commercial” is a land use group type. Please provide the specific use within the “Commercial Services” Land Use Group. From the description, it appears that it may be “Commercial Services – Research & Product Development, subject to use-specific standard 4.9.13.Q.”

The UDC definition for “Research & Product Development” in UDC 11.3.4.U. is “The conducting of research of a commercial, industrial, or scientific nature, including analytic, diagnostic, processing, and other types of laboratory services. Typical uses include assaying, commercial testing, and engineering laboratories.”

If this adequately describes the proposed use, please cite this use instead of “Commercial”, and update parking calculations tables to account for any differences.

If “Research & Product Development” does not adequately describe the use, please indicate the appropriate use, as described in UDC 11.3.4. instead.


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.H.5.a - Show all motor vehicle off-street parking spaces provided, fully dimensioned. As a note, provide calculations on the number of spaces required (include the ratio used) and the number provided, including the number of spaces required and provided for the physically disabled. The drawing should indicate parking space locations for the physically disabled. A typical parking space detail shall be provided for both standard parking spaces and those for the physically disabled. For information on parking requirements for the physically disabled, refer to adopted building and accessibility codes of the City of Tucson. Design criteria for parking spaces and access are located in Section 7.4.6, Motor Vehicle Use Area Design Criteria, of the UDC.

5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a - Motor vehicle parking spaces depicted immediately to the east of the new building demonstrate dimensions of 9’ x 15.5’, which is less than the minimum standard parking space of 8.5’ x 18’ in UDC 7.4.6.D.1. A Parking Design Modification Request (PDMR) must be submitted to request a reduction in the minimum size of parking spaces. Please reach out to Nick Ross at nicholas.ross@tucsonaz.gov to request the PDMR application; this is a staff-level review that occurs concurrently with the next review cycle. Please submit the completed application as a “subrecord” to this permit within TDC Online.

Please separately identify the total number of compact parking spaces within the parking calculations table on Sheet 1.


2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Show bicycle parking facilities fully dimensioned. For specifics, refer to Section 7.4.9, Bicycle Parking Design Criteria, of the UDC. Provide, as a note, calculations for short and long term bicycle spaces required and provided.

6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d – Bicycle parking calculations are based upon a use of “Commercial Services – Administrative and Professional Office”. If the use is updated to “Commercial Services – Research & Product Development” per earlier comment, then the total number of required short-term bicycle parking is two spaces and the total number of required long-term bicycle parking is 1 space per 12,000 sf of GFA. This would reduce the total number of required bicycle parking required on site.

2-06.4.9.R - Show on-site pedestrian circulation and refuge utilizing location and the design criteria in Section 7-01.0.0, Pedestrian Access, of the Technical Standards Manual.

7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Provide a pedestrian circulation route from the main building to the trash enclosures per UDC Technical Standards Manual 7-01.3.3.B.

***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 Site Zoning Reviewer Fernando Garcia at fernando.garcia2@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.
08/03/2026 CDRC Application Completeness Express REVIEW COMPLETED
08/10/2026 CDRC Review Coordinator Express REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC added Addressing, ADOT, TAA, PAG, USPS, SWG, and TEP to the workflow. FYI notices sent to PAG, USPS, SWG, and TEP.
08/31/2026 External Reviewers - Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Standard REVIEW COMPLETED Fwd: TDC External Review PERMIT: TD-DEV-0726-00212Please Sign-In DUE: 8/31/2026
rfreije@azdot.gov
on behalf of
ADOT SC Traffic Engineering - ADOT<adotsctrafficengineering@azdot.gov>

CDRC
ADOT has no comments.

Thanks, Rick Freije
08/10/2026 External Reviewers - Pima Association of Governments Standard REVIEW COMPLETED CDRC sent FYI Notice email sent. No further action is required.
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.
08/03/2026 OK to Submit - Engineering Fast REVIEW COMPLETED
08/05/2026 OK to Submit - Zoning Fast REVIEW COMPLETED