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: T03BU00898
Parcel: 140290570

Review Status: Completed

Review Details: GRADING

Permit Number - T03BU00898
Review Name: GRADING
Review Status: Completed
Review Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description Status Comments
04/30/2003 JOE LINVILLE NPPO REVIEW Denied Include a grading limit consistent with the Native Plant Preservation plan on the grading plans.

Call 791-5640 Ext. 1140 to schedule the NPPO Pre-permit Inspection. This inspection must be approved prior to the issuance of the permit.
04/30/2003 LOREN MAKUS NPDES REVIEW Denied T03BU00898
Santa Rita Bottling Expansion
Reviewed by: Loren Makus
April 30, 2003

The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) does not meet the requirements of the AzPDES Construction General Permit. The revised pages that were faxed to the reviewer are the basis of this review. The following items must be addressed:

1. Provide identification of all operators and the areas over which each has control (Part IV.C.1) Where an operator is unknown (such as a yet to be determined general contractor) leave space for the identity to be supplied later.
2. Include a copy of the AzPDES permit and the NOI on forms provided by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). (Part IV.F) Each operator is responsible for submitting a completed NOI to ADEQ and to the City of Tucson.
3. Provide a signed certification for each operator. (Part IV.J.1)
4. Provide the total area of site, and an estimate of the total area to be disturbed. The statement in the SWPPP does not appear to match the information in the grading plan. (Part IV.C.2.c) The grading plan shows extensive undisturbed natural areas. Revise the SWPPP to be consistent with the grading plan. The grading plan seems to provide conflicting information about the existing concrete drainage. Revise the SWPPP to be consistent with the revised grading plan.
5. Provide estimated run-off coefficients for pre-construction and post-construction conditions. The information in the SWPPP does not match the information in the drainage report.(Part IV.C.2.d)
6. Provide general location map showing and identifying receiving waters within 1 mile (Part IV.C.2.e)
7. Identify the name of nearest receiving waters that will be disturbed or receive discharges from disturbed areas of the project. (Part IV.C.4)
8. Revise the Project Sequencing to address the importation of fill material and the construction of the building. Explain the item that indicates the roads will be rough cut and cut material from cutting road and channel to fill areas. The grading plan does not show any new roads or channels. (Part IV.C.2.b) Show "denoted areas" to be stabilized on site map. (Part IV.C.3.d)
9. Give specific implementation timelines for all specified best management practices. (Part IV.D.1) (See remarks throughout reviewed SWPPP).
10. Revise the site map to show locations of structural and nonstructural controls, (Part IV.C.3.c) (See remarks throughout reviewed SWPPP).
11. Revise the site map to show locations where stabilization practices are planned, (Part IV.C.3.d) (See remarks throughout reviewed SWPPP).
12. Revise the site map sheets and the report pages so that information is consistent throughout.
13. Appendix E was prepared for Riverview Estates. Prepare required information for this project.
14. Describe practices that will be followed to prevent solid materials including waste materials from becoming pollutants. (Part IV.d.3)
15. Revise the information on page 7 of the report to indicate that ADEQ is the permitting authority.
16. Revise the list of "practices" on pages 7 and following to describe the practices that are to be followed to achieve the listed goals. Make this information consistent with the information on the site map.
17. Revise the site map to show 1.)Drainage patterns, (Part IV.C.3.a) 2.) Areas of soil disturbance/Areas which will not be disturbed, (Part IV.C.3.b) 3.) Locations where stormwater discharges to a surface water (include ephemeral waters, or dry washes) and to MS4s, (Part IV.C.3.g)
18. Page 9 indicates that the final slope stabilization measures are specified in the final grading plans. This does not appear to be so. The site map and page 10 give other permanent stabilization practices. If the use of MgCl or Coherex is indicated for permanent stabilization, show that it is at least as effective as revegetation.
19. Revise the inspection procedures to be consistent with the general permit (Part IV.H) Indicate and describe the inspection plan that will be followed.
20. Revise the inspection forms or revise the SWPPP to record the qualifications of the inspector.(Part IV.H.5)
21. Revise the SWPPP to indicate that permit coverage is terminated after the NOT is received by ADEQ.
Revise the SWPPP to be consistent with these comments, the remarks in the SWPPP and on the site map, the Arizona construction general permit, and the revised grading plan. Submit three copies of the revised SWPPP with the grading plan resubmittal.
If you have questions about any of these comments or the remarks on the reviewed SWPPP, please contact me at 791-5550 ext. 1161.
05/01/2003 DOUG WILLIAMS ENGINEERING REVIEW Denied SUBJECT: Santa Rita Bottling
REVIEWER: Doug Williams
DATE: 1 May 2003
ACTIVITY NUMBER: T03BU00898

SUMMARY: Engineering Division has reviewed the Site/Grading and Paving plans received on 1 May 2003. Approval is not recommended at this time. The drainage report comments listed below were provided under the Site and Drainage report review of 24 April 2003 (DSD Activity # T03OT00511). The Site and Grading Plan comments provided under that review are still applicable, yet are not included as a part of this Grading Plan review. Please address the following comments:

DRAINAGE REPORT: (the following drainage report comments were also provided under the Site Plan review - activity # T03OT00511, on 24 April 2003).
1. Provide basin details, elevations, and dimensions, fully labeled. Include maximum water surface elevations, and limits of 100-year ponding, at a minimum, in accordance with the City of Tucson Standards Manual for Drainage Design and Floodplain Management (SMDDFM), sec. 2.3.1.6 A (Development Standard - DS - 10-02.0);
2. Specify the name, address, and telephone number of the person(s), firm(s), agency or agencies responsible for the ownership, operation, scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, and liability of the drainage improvements proposed within this development (SMDDFM), section 2.3.1.2 E (DS 10-02.0);
3. Provide a detailed Detention/Retention basin maintenance checklist and schedule, and basin performance criteria for annual and as-needed inspections of the basins and drainageways, addressing the items specified in the SMDDFM (sections 2.3.1.6 C 1& 2 and 14.3);
4. Include certification that the proposed drainage plan, once properly constructed, will adhere to applicable Local, State, and Federal Floodplain Regulations (SMDDFM, sec. 2.3.1.7 B);
5. Use of a contributing area factor other than 1 requires sufficient supporting data (e.g., aerial-photographic analysis and field verification), to justify its use. Please discuss the use of a factor of .95 on the hydrologic calculations for offsite watershed 5, or revise accordingly (See note under Table 4.4, SMDDFM);
6. It appears that a detention waiver may be applicable to this project, as discussed in the report. The consultant should refer to section 2.3, equation 2.1, in the Pima County/City of Tucson Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual for criteria calculation requirements (DS 10-01.0);
7. The required 5-year threshold retention calculations do not appear to incorporate all of the proposed impervious cover - please show calculations for volume determinations in appendix B, in accordance with section 3.2 of the Detention/Retention Manual (DS 10-01.0);
8. Provide retention basin percolation test results. Test procedures shall be performed in accordance with the recommended procedure of the Pima County Department of Transportation - Flood Control District. At the time of building permit submittal, a soils report addressing the items listed in section 14.2.6 (SMDDFM) will be required to be submitted;


GRADING PLAN COMMENTS:

1. Include or reference conformance to excavation and grading requirements outlined in the 2000 International Building Code (IBC) - local amendment (chapter 36), in the Site Grading Notes section;
2. Provide existing topographic contours on sheet C4 or remove Site Grading Note 4;
3. Depict limits of grading, and provide total area to be disturbed for an accurate determination of a reseeding bond amount;
4. The Development Plan included with the Drainage Report indicates easements were to be vacated upon approval and recording of the plan. If this is the case, depending on the extent of the vacations, the 30' drainage easement identified on the plan may be non-existent. Please provide documentation describing the vacation that was effected. If the vacation did not extend beyond the limits of expansion at that time, then an additional vacation may be necessary, as it affects this proposed expansion.
5. Chapter 25, Tucson Code stipulates maximum driveway widths of 30 feet at the property line for business and industrial districts - revise as necessary;
6. Development Standard 3-01.10, figure 6 specifies minimum return radius' of 25' where driveways intersect with collector and arterial roadways. Please identify 25' minimum radii, at the driveway entrance intersection with Country Club Road;
7. Depict roof drainage direction(s) with discharge locations noted. Please include reference to splash pads or other energy dissipating type items at downspout locations;
8. Provide a typical pavement section;
9. Revise Site Grading Note # 6 to read: "AZPDES permit for…" Recent changes in stormwater control permit requirements have resulted in State-level administrative and permitting requirements;
· Please include retention/detention basin, inflow/outflow structures, and related conveyance mechanism details, fully labeled and dimensioned, with the resubmittal. Additional comments may be necessary due to the exclusion of these items from the present submittals

Please address all of the above comments. Resubmittal shall include a revised site and grading/paving plan and drainage report.
If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550, extension 1189 or Dwillia1@ci.tucson.az.us.

Douglas Williams
Sr. Engineering Associate
Engineering Division
Development Services Department
05/05/2003 PATRICIA GEHLEN ZONING REVIEW Denied Zoning
5/5/2003
The grading plans can not be reviewed and approved until they are approved by engineering/floodplain approve the plans.

Final Status

Task End Date Reviewer's Name Type of Review Description
05/05/2003 MONICA VALDEZ OUT TO CUSTOMER Completed
05/05/2003 ANGIE SHOFFSTALL REJECT SHELF Completed