Microfiche records prior to 2006 have not been completely digitized and may not be available yet on PRO. If you can not find what you are looking for please submit a records request.
Permit Review Detail
Review Status: Completed
Review Details: RESUBMITTAL
Permit Number - T01CM05242
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01/27/2002 | MATT FLICK | ZONING | REVIEW | Approved | |
| 02/27/2002 | MATT FLICK | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | ENGINEERING & FLOODPLAIN COMMENTS (site plan): Comments #1, #2, #4, and #5 from 11JAN02 comment were not addressed. Comment #3 could not be checked because no grading plan was submitted. ENGINEERING & FLOODPLAIN COMMENTS (drainage report) The drainage report is not approved. The following comments are offered: 1. The report states that a "bleed pipe" is necessary because the 3' deep basin will not drain within 12 hours. A larger basin may be necessary to ensure that the basin is shallow enough to ensure drainage within 12 hours. 2. The site lies within the Rodeo Wash critical basin. A 15% reduction from existing discharges of the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year evants are required for developed conditions. No detention basin routing are provided in the report. 3. The site soils are 100%B per the soils mapping. All onsite discharges should be revised to reflect the correct soils type. 4. The COT 100-year rainfall amount is 3 inches per the Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management (SMDDFM), not 2.81 inches as used in the report. 5. The retention volume must be determined by hydrograph analysis or using the applicable equation in the detention/retention manual. 6. The report seems to indicate that a floodplain may exist on the property. It, and the applicable erosion hazard setback, must be shown on the site plan and grading plan. A meeting with the customer and his engineer(s) is required prior to next submittal. Both will be contacted to set up a meeting since this submittal is no closer to approval than the last. |
| 02/27/2002 | LLESNY1 | LANDSCAPE | REVIEW | Needs Review | |
| 02/27/2002 | MATT FLICK | FLOODPLAIN | REVIEW | Denied | Spoke with Mr. Leon this AM (30JAN02). He said that the NPPO and other info would be ready on Friday. I informed him that I could not do further review on the project without the drainage report. He was to check with his engineering consultant to see that a drainage report was submitted for review. |
| 02/27/2002 | MATT FLICK | FLOODPLAIN | REVIEW | Denied | A meeting with the customer and engineer(s) is required. See comments in Engineering Folder. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 03/27/2002 | LISA LESNY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |