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: TR-UTL-0626-01067
Parcel: 10119007G

Review Status: Requires Resubmit

Review Details: RIGHT-OF-WAY REVIEW v.6

Permit Number - TR-UTL-0626-01067
Review Name: RIGHT-OF-WAY REVIEW v.6
Review Status: Requires Resubmit
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
09/29/2026 Transportation Landscape Review - Standard APPROVED
09/22/2026 Archeological Sensitivity - Standard PENDING ASSIGNMENT
10/20/2026 ROW Engineering Review - Standard PENDING ASSIGNMENT
09/22/2026 Transportation Application Review Express PENDING ASSIGNMENT
10/20/2026 Engineering Project Managers - Standard REQUIRES RESUBMIT Comments apply to all 6 permit submittals.

1. Please attach the Arizona State Museum Permit and Standard Burial Agreement to each individual permit submittal.

2. Please attach the Native Plant Exception Application Memorandum and BESF to each individual permit submittal.

3. Sheet 3 Construction Specifications, General Notes, Note #1 refers to Plow Construction Method. Please cross-out or remove as not a part. Applies to all 6 permit submittals.

4. MMR/Bicentel Segment 3 plans, Sheet 3 City of Tucson General Notes heading overlaps notes.

General Handhole and Bore Pit comments as discussed in Teams meeting 10/19/26:

1. Sta 346+14, 70’ LT Handholes appear to be in future fill location.

2. Sta 346+14.64, 83.66’LT Bore Pit location appears to conflict with existing paved park access road. As discussed Bore Pit will need to be located where it will not impact existing road surface nor impede travel during work.

3. Note: COT Parks to be notified prior to beginning work, in advance of Preconstruction meeting.

4. Sta 351.99, 82’ LT Handholes appear to be in future V-ditch/cut location.

5. Sta 355+99.42, 58.61’LT Bore Pit location adjacent to PACC. Note: PACC to be notified prior to beginning work, in advance of Preconstruction meeting.

6. Sta 380+55, 65’ LT Handholes appear to be in future fill location and in conflict with erosion control mat. As discussed, engineer considering eliminating this Handhole location.

7. Sta 395+00, 58’ LT Handholes appear to be in future fill location.

8. Sta 403+24, 61’ LT Handholes appear to be in future V-ditch/cut location.

9. Sta 408+00, 57’ LT Handholes appear to be in future fill location may be in conflict with Utility Pole.

10. Sta 415+00, 67’ LT Handholes appear to be in future fill location.

11. Sta 422+00, 67’ LT Handholes appear to be in future V-ditch/cut location.

12. Sta 403+00± to Sta 420+00± verify clearance and check potential conflicts of directional drill with Utility Pole foundations along this area.

13. General- At locations of Handholes in future fill, design team offered potential solution to set box at grade, roadway contractor to place fill over, and fiber contractor to later raise Handholes to future grade after roadway construction. Locations of potential conflict with V-ditch, design team noted Handholes should not be in V-Ditch locations susceptible to flooding.

14. Please review all segments for similar conflict comments noted above if not addressed in review.

15. Please provide resolutions to conflict comments noted above.

Thanks!