Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
Review Details: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.3
Permit Number - TD-DEV-1123-00471
Review Name: DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE NEW v.3
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/07/2025 | NPPO | APPROVED | |||
| 01/29/2025 | CDRC Post Review Express | PENDING ASSIGNMENT | |||
| 01/29/2025 | External Reviewers - Pima County Addressing | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 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. Comment ID Comment Date Corrections Needed Page Ref Reviewer : Department Review Comments 7 01/29/252025 Yes DP 22-042-DP2 Nicholas Jordan : DSD Addressing Unit 1103 8 01/29/252025 Yes DP 22-042-DP2 Nicholas Jordan : DSD Addressing Unit 1104 9 01/29/252025 Yes DP 22-042-DP2 Nicholas Jordan : DSD Addressing Unit 1106 10 01/29/252025 Yes DP 22-042-DP2 Nicholas Jordan : DSD Addressing Unit 1105 11 01/29/252025 Yes DP 22-042-DP2 Nicholas Jordan : DSD Addressing Unit 1107 12 01/29/252025 Yes DP 22-042-DP2 Nicholas Jordan : DSD Addressing Unit 1108 13 01/29/252025 Yes DP 22-042-DP2 Nicholas Jordan : DSD Addressing Unit 2116 14 01/29/252025 Yes DP 22-042-DP2 Nicholas Jordan : DSD Addressing Unit 2115 15 01/29/252025 Yes DP 22-042-DP2 Nicholas Jordan : DSD Addressing Unit 2114 16 01/29/252025 Yes DP 22-042-DP2 Nicholas Jordan : DSD Addressing Unit 2113 17 01/29/252025 Yes DP 22-042-DP2 Nicholas Jordan : DSD Addressing Unit 2112 18 01/29/252025 Yes DP 22-042-DP2 Nicholas Jordan : DSD Addressing Unit 2111 19 01/29/252025 Yes DP 22-042-DP2 Nicholas Jordan : DSD Addressing Unit 2110 20 01/29/252025 Yes DP 22-042-DP2 Nicholas Jordan : DSD Addressing Unit 2109 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. |
||
| 01/07/2025 | Fire New Construction | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | -Provide the type of construction and total square footage of each building to determine fire flow requirements and fire hydrant requirements per IFC Table B105.1(2), C102.1. -Could not locate the fire service underground line for the fire sprinkler system. -Explain how you will comply with IFC D103.4. It appears you do not meet the required options for fire apparatus turnaround provisions. john.vincent@tucsonaz.gov 5203495581 |
||
| 12/16/2024 | ROW Engineering Review | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | TD-DEV-1123-00471 • 3854 N STONE AV 1. Per Sec. 10-01.3.3 of the Technical Standards Manual, a pedestrian circulation path, as specified in Sec. 10-01.4.0, shall be provided along the entire street frontage of the development. The existing driveway apron is out of compliance and will have to be removed and replaced. 2. The majority of the stormwater flows of the developed site are proposed to be discharge through the driveway and across the sidewalk along Stone Ave. Per Sec. 10-01.4.4.F of the Technical Standards Manual, the sidewalk shall be designed and constructed to convey the ten-year flood flow under the sidewalk. If you have any questions, please contact Richard Leigh at richard.leigh@tucsonaz.gov. |
||
| 01/06/2025 | Site Engineering | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | 1. Section 3.3 of the drainage report mentions hydroseed side slope stabilization for the detention basin. Please include a note for this on the RET/DET Basin detail on sheet 2 of the plan set. 2. The proposed onsite sidewalks are not connected. Pedestrian circulation is required to connect all buildings, dumpster areas, and the sidewalk on the street frontage per TSM 7-01.3.3. Show a continuous pedestrian path. 3. Please show the reduced sidewalk width next to the proposed parking lot trees and show that the tree grate is rated for ADA travel. 4. Show that the slope of waste enclosure slab and apron are a minimum 1% and 2%, respectively, per TSM 8. 5. Section 2.3 of the drainage report provides numbers for the 100-year peak discharge that do not match Table 2. The narrative provides 8.21cfs and 13.39cfs for the existing and proposed conditions. The table provides 6.64cfs and 8.25cfs, respectively. Please revise. 6. The 2- and 10-year peak flow rates not addressed in terms of detention. Please provide the existing and proposed peak flow rates for the 2, 10, and 100 year storms as required by the Design Standards for Stormwater Detention and Retention (DSSDR) Manual Section 3. 7. Tables 1 and 2 of the drainage report are title "offsite and onsite" but only show onsite information. The table of content says section 2.2 covers offsite drainage but there is no section 2.2 (it was skipped) and offsite drainage is not required for this project. Please revise. 8. Please provide hydrology calculations for the 2, 10, and 100-year storm for the existing and proposed conditions, and provide routing for detention calculations. It is strongly recommended to use PC-HYDRO for the hydrology calculations: https://pchydro.rfcd.pima.gov/ 9. There are missing figures in the drainage report. Please include all mentioned figures. An onsite proposed conditions watershed map is required. 10. Please include first flush retention calculations in the drainage report that meet the requirements of DSSDR Section 2. 11. Provide a summary table in the drainage report that clearly shows all existing and proposed (post-attenuation) peak flow rates for the 2, 10, and 100-year storms. 12. Show dimensioned ADA parking spaces on the site plan and ensure compliance with ADA Accessibility Standards 208 and 502. Ensure at least one space is van-capable. 13. Show locations of roof downspouts. Stormwater from roof drains may not pass over sidewalks per TSM 7-01.4.3E. 14. Show all PAAL dimensions on the plan set, including the parking area on the southeast and southwest sides. The current proposal of 19.65ft for the 2-way access lane does not meet the requirements of UDC 7.4.6. This lane requires a width of at least 20ft or a TSMR. 15. Please clarify whether a gate is proposed at the entrance to the property. Mike Ortiz michael.ortiz@tucsonaz.gov |
||
| 01/07/2025 | Site Landscape | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | CDRC TRANSMITTAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT REVIEWER: CHAD KELLER, RLA SITE LANDSCAPE/NATIVE PLANT PRESERVATION SECTION PROJECT: MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY NO: TD-DEV-1123-00471 ADDRESS: 3854 N STONE AV ZONING: R-2 RESIDENCE ZONE LAND USE: MULTI-FAMILY COMMERCIAL This plan has been reviewed for compliance with applicable development criteria in the City of Tucson Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-11 and Technical Manual (TM) Section for landscape, native plants, and water harvesting. Please resubmit revised drawings along with a detailed response letter, which states how all of the Site Landscape/NPPO Section review comments have been addressed. SITE LANDSCAPE/NPPO SECTION COMMENTS: 1. UDC 2-10.4.1 Identification and Descriptive Data - All improvements and site information, such as adjacent rights-of-way and property lines, shown on the landscape plan will be identical in size and location to those shown on the base plan (site plan or tentative plat). Should amendments be required to the base plan through the review process, the same amendments will be made to the landscape plan. 2. Add a north arrow and scale to all plan view sheets in the landscape set. 3. Label the project property line on all sides of the site and on all sheets in the landscape plan set. 4. Label Stone Av on the west side of the project and show centerline of the road, existing ROW and/or future ROW if applicable. Also add sight visibility triangles at the entry from Stone Av. 5. Provide the required number of trees in the parking area (1 tree per 4 parking spaces). The planting plan appears to have the trees located at the face of the curb within tree grates which is fine. The tree symbol is really light and does not match any tree symbol in the planting legend. Coordinate and update for the next submittal. 6. The symbol for the lady slipper in the legend is showing up differently and difficult to read on the plan view. Update the symbol on the plan, or possibly use a different symbol for this plant. 7. Update the landscape border requirements table on sheet 1 of 4 of the landscape plans. The west property line along Stone Av. requires a street landscape border. There is not much room, but there should be one required tree placed within 10’ of the property line along with the required vegetative groundcover. The north, east and south are all interior landscape borders as this development is multifamily land use adjacent to residential on those three sides. Update the plans and the landscape border requirements table accordingly. Example of miscalculation: The distance shown on the north property line is 398 linear/one tree required for every 33 linear feet, requiring 12.06 trees or 13 trees. 8. Please show all irrigation sleeves for irrigation lines crossing hardscape. 9. Include a construction detail showing root barriers for trees located near hardscape areas. See Detail 402 located here: https://www.tucsonaz.gov/Departments/Transportation-Mobility/Landscape/Landscape-Architects 10. A Commercial Rainwater Harvesting plan is required: See Technical Standards Manual 4-01.3.0 RAINWATER HARVESTING PLAN. A Rainwater Harvesting Plan shall be submitted with all applications for commercial developments at which landscaping is required. The Rainwater Harvesting Plan shall consist of two elements: A Site Water Budget Calculation Spreadsheet and a Water Harvesting Implementation Plan. Preparation of the Rainwater Harvesting Plan elements require coordination between project managers, site engineers and landscape architects from the inception of the project. The Landscape Plan should match the Commercial Rainwater Harvesting Plan as well as the Grading Plan. The two elements of the Rainwater Harvesting Plan shall illustrate how water harvesting will meet 50% of annual landscape water demand, as required by the ordinance. If a copy of the Site Water Budget Spreadsheet is needed, please reach out to the contact information at the bottom of these comments. 11. As a standard practice, a few spot elevations on the CRWHP at the bottom of basin and basin curb cut inlets and outlets that match the civil grading plan for coordination between the plans should be included on the CRWHP. 12. On the rainwater harvesting plan add these general notes for construction clarity. Wording similar to the following will provide clear direction/coordination and intent for the contractor’s reference: a. See Civil Grading Plan for additional information on basin side slopes, spot elevation, shape, contouring, flow lines, curb cuts, downspouts, splash pads, etc. b. This Rainwater Harvesting Plan is designed to work in conjunction with the civil grading and drainage plans. The specific intent of the Rainwater Harvesting Plan is to demonstrate that the site grading and drainage facilitates direct flow of impervious-surface runoff in sufficient quantities to the depressed planting areas to comply with the Commercial Rainwater Harvesting Ordinance. It is the Contractor's responsibility to meet the requirements of Site Grading and Drainage plans and the Rainwater Harvesting Plan and to notify the engineer of any discrepancies between the two plans. 13. Label irrigation meter as “irrigation only”. See TSM 4-01.6.0 14. The irrigation source point of connection is shown with a symbol on the irrigation legend but not shown on the plan. Indicate the meter point of connection location on the plan view. 15. Show irrigation drip lines and sleeves going to the parking area trees within the tree grates. 16. The planting areas in the parking area and adjacent to the north buildings should be depressed and likely included with the rest of the basins as part of the Commercial Rainwater Harvesting Plan. At the very least all proposed landscape planting areas should be depressed for water harvesting and called out as such. Add contouring or some kind of hatch indicating that all landscape areas shall be depressed, even if only receiving rainfall and coordinate this information with the civil engineer and the grading plan. 17. A rainwater harvesting basin schematic detail is not a requirement but adding it to CRWHP would be a nice addition for construction clarity. If you would like to add the detail and need an example, please reach out and I will send an example of the schematic for reference. 18. Add a detail that shows a multi-trunk tree with no stakes and a note to remove the nursery stake. There have been many instances out on project sites that the staking for multi-trunk trees are being staked in a way that is detrimental to the tree’s establishment and overall health. 19. Tree staking notes are included in the single trunk tree planting detail. Should a time period advisement for removal of tree stakes be added to the Landscape Maintenance notes for contractor/owner clarity? This is something I’ve been noticing out on finished project sites. The staking cinch-ties have been constricting and damaging newly planted trees. 20. DTM review is required for all planting and irrigation in the ROW prior to the approval of the development package. Reach out to David Marhefka (david.marhefka@tucsonaz.gov) if needed for this project. 21. Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-1123-00471, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 2-06.4.3 22. Prior to Site Landscape Development Package approval, please make sure Site Zoning and Site Engineering comments are addressed. If you have any questions about these comments, I can be reached at chad.keller@tucsonaz.gov or at 520.837.4923 |
||
| 01/10/2025 | Site Zoning | REQUIRES RESUBMIT | PDSD TRANSMITTAL FROM: PDSD Zoning Review PROJECT: Salazar Investments Units 1 – 15 an FLD Single-Family Attached Development Development Package (1st Review) TD-DEV-1123-00471 TRANSMITTAL DATE: January 10, 2025 DUE DATE: January 6, 2025 COMMENTS: Resubmit revised drawings along with a detailed response letter, which states how all Zoning Review Section comments were addressed. This plan has been reviewed for compliance with the Unified Development Code (UDC) Administrative Manual (AM) Section 2-06. Also, compliance with applicable development criteria for the proposed use as listed in the City of Tucson Uniform Development Code (UDC) and the UDC Technical Standards Manual (TSM). 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 December 24, 2025. 1. COMMENT: Per :UDC Article 3.3.3.G.5.c 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. This DP has exceeded its one year and has expired. Contact Nicholas Ross at Nicholas.Ross@tucsonaz.gov, to determine how this comment will be addressed. 2-06.2.0 APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 2. COMMENT: 2-06.2.2 – The DP sheets, landscape sheets and SWPPP sheets shall be submitted as a single multi-page PDF file. 2-06.3.0 FORMAT REQUIREMENTS 3. COMMENT: 2-06.3.12 – The required index of sheets in the development package shall include all sheets submitted, i.e. DP, landscape and SWPPP sheets. 2-06.4.0 CONTENT REQUIREMENTS 4. COMMENT: 2-06.4.2.B – Provide a brief legal description within the title block. 5. COMMENT: 2-06.4.2.C – As you are proposing to use the Flexible Lot Development (FLD) for this multifamily DP provide this information within the title block. 6. COMMENT: 2-06.4.2.D – The page number and the total number of pages in the package (i.e., sheet xx of xx) shall include all sheets submitted, i.e. DP, landscape and SWPPP sheets. 7. COMMENT: 2-06.4.3 – Provide the development package case number, TD-DEV-1123-00471, adjacent to the title block on all sheets. 2-06.4.7 - General Notes The following general notes are required. Additional notes specific to each plan are required where applicable. 2-06.4.7.A - Zoning and Land Use Notes 8. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.1 – Zoning and Land Use note 2 is not correct and should include O-1 zone as the northwest corner of this site is zoned O-1. 9. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.4 - Zoning and Land Use note 4, clarify what the proposed use is. As no property lines are shown it does not appear to be single-family attached. If this is single-family attached, then this DP will need to be within drawn and a tentative plat with a final plat will need to be submitted. As there are no property lines shown on this DP it appears that you are proposing multifamily. 10. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.5 – Zoning and Land Use note 5 shows the number of units as 18 but the plan only shows 15. 11. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.6.a - As Stone Ave. is designated as an Arterial on the COT MS&R Map provide a general note on the cover sheet stating “THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE OVERLAY ZONE(S) CRITERIA, UDC ARTICLE 5.4 MAJOR STREETS AND ROUTES SETBACK ZONE (MS&R) 2-06.4.7.A.8 - For development package documents provide: 12. COMMENT: 2-06.4.7.A.8.b – The proposed 83% site coverage shown under Flexible Unit Development note 3 exceeds the allowed 75%, UDC Table 8.7.3-1. Board of Adjustment for Variance will need to be submitted and approved. 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. 13. COMMENT: 2-06.4.8.C – Provide the following information for Stone Ave. right-of-way width, dimensioned width of paving, curbs, curb cuts, and sidewalks. 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. 14. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.F - All existing zoning classifications on and adjacent to the project (including across any adjacent right-of-way) shall be indicated on the drawing with zoning boundaries clearly defined. 15. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.2 - Show future and existing sight visibility triangles. On a designated MS&R street, the sight visibility triangles are based on the MS&R cross-section. 16. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – The proposed 19.65’ wide access lane shown off of Stone does not meet the minimum 20’ two-way access lane requirements, UDC Table 7.4.6-2. 17. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Clearly demonstrate that the requirements of UDC Article 7.4.6.F.2.b are met along the south side of the access lane shown off of Stone, and the west property line. 18. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Fully dimension all back-up spurs shown on the plan, UDC Article 7.4.6.F.4. 19. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Provide a PAAL width dimension for the PAAL shown west of the vehicle parking spaces located west of the open space shown west of Unit 15. 20. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Provide a PAAL width dimension for the PAAL shown east of the vehicle parking spaces located east of Unit 9. 21. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5 – Clearly demonstrate how vehicles will be prevented from damaging what appears to be a fence located along the west property line and on the south side of the access lane shown off of Stone. 22. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – Until comment 8 is addressed vehicle parking requirements cannot be determined. 23. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.a – The wheel stop location dimension is not shown correctly. Review UDC Article 7.4.6.H.3 & Figure 7.4.6-C and provide the correct dimension location. 24. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.H.5.d - Until comment 9 is addressed bicycle parking requirements cannot be determined. 25. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.O - Until comment 9 & 26 are addressed perimeter yard setback requirements cannot be determined. 26. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.Q – Show the specific use and height of each building within the footprint. 27. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Clearly demonstrate how the requirements of TSM Section 7-01.4. are met for all sidewalks shown adjacent to a vehicle use area. 28. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.R – Clearly demonstrate how the requirements of TSM Section 7-01.3.3.B are met. There does not appear to be a connection between the north buildings to the south buildings. 29. COMMENT: 2-06.4.9.V – Clearly show how mail delivery will be provided. For gang mailboxes indicate location to assure there are no conflicts with other requirements, such as pedestrian accessibility, utilities, and landscaping. 2-06.5.0 FLEXIBLE LOT DEVELOPMENT (FLD - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS) 30. COMMENT: 2-06.5.0 – Per Table 3.2-1 a neighborhood meeting is required and should have been held not more than 60 days prior to this submittal, UDC Article 3.2.2.C.1.c. As this requirement was not addressed additional requirements may be forth coming, Contact Nicholas Ross at Nicholas.Ross@tucsonaz.gov, to determine how this comment will be addressed. 2-06.5.3 Additional Information The following are required in addition to the requirements of the tentative plat or site plan, whichever is applicable: 31. COMMENT: -06.5.3.B – Applicants requesting a Maximum Density Option in accordance with Section 8.7.3.C.3.b must demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria by written report or on the plat or site plan, whichever is appropriate. 32. COMMENT: 2-06.5.3.C – Delineate the boundaries of the proposed functional open space on the tentative plat or site plan, whichever is applicable. Clearly demonstrate that the functional open space meets the requirements of UDC Article 9.7.3.F. 33. COMMENT: 2-06.5.3.F – The required privacy mitigation plan will need to be approved prior to approval of the DP or a not stating that the PVP is required prior to approval of the first building plan. 34. COMMENT: 2-06.5.3.G.2 – Deepening on how comment 9 is addressed CC&Rs maybe required. Additional Comments 35. COMMENT: - Depending on how comment 9 is addressed, additional may be forth coming. If you have any questions about this transmittal, please contact Zone1.desk@tucsonaz.gov. RESUBMITTAL OF THE FOLLOWING IS REQUIRED: A revised development package as well as a comment response letter. To resubmit, visit the Tucson Development Center Online at https://tdc-online.tucsonaz.gov/#/home. The instructions for resubmittal can be found at https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/pdsd/documents/tdc-faq/new-pdfs/revisions-and-resubmittals.pdf. |
||
| 12/05/2024 | CDRC Application Completeness Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 12/16/2024 | CDRC Review Coordinator Express | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC added ADOT, Addressing, and TEP PAG, USPS, SWG to the workflow. Review request email sent to ADOT, Addressing, and TEP. FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. | ||
| 01/02/2025 | Commercial Plumbing | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 01/15/2025 | External Reviewers - Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) | REVIEW COMPLETED | Good Afternoon, ADOT has no comments on this DEV. Thank you for the opportunity to review. |
||
| 12/16/2024 | External Reviewers - Pima Association of Governments | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required. | ||
| 12/16/2024 | External Reviewers - Southwest Gas | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required. | ||
| 01/23/2025 | External Reviewers - Tucson Electric Power (TEP) | REVIEW COMPLETED | January 22, 2025 WO#T139163 City of Tucson Planning and Development Services Attn: CDRC Admin Team Dear CDRC Admin Team Subject: Salazar Investments TD-DEV-1123-00471 Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) has reviewed and approved the development plan submitted 1/10/2025. There are existing facilities within the development which are depicted upon the plan. The developer will be responsible for relocation of existing OH services. Further, any newly installed equipment will require TEP Easements per SR108 Standards. Enclosed is a copy of a TEP facilities map showing the approximate location of the existing facilities. Any relocation costs will be billable to the customer. To apply for electric service, please call the New Construction department at (520) 918- 8300. Please submit a final set of plans including approved site, electric load, paving off-site improvements and irrigation plans. If available, include a PDF version of the plans. If easements are required, they will be secured by separate instrument. Should you have any easement questions, please contact our Land Resources Department, LandReviews@tep.com. Should you have any technical questions, please contact the area designer, Chuck Leon (520) 400-6133 cleon@tep.com Sincerely, Design Admins Design Admins Tucson Electric Power |
||
| 12/16/2024 | External Reviewers - United States Postal Service (USPS) | REVIEW COMPLETED | CDRC sent FYI email sent to PAG, USPS, SWG. No further action is required. | ||
| 12/05/2024 | OK to Submit - Engineering Fast | REVIEW COMPLETED | |||
| 12/13/2024 | OK to Submit - Zoning Fast | REVIEW COMPLETED |