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 - GRADING
Permit Number - T04BU02272
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11/04/2004 | Laith Alshami | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Grading Plan comments, 11/10/2004 1- The Horizontal Control Plans do not readily provide the Parcel dimensions and bearings. Show the Parcel dimensions and bearings and show how the parcel ties into the basis of bearing. 2- Provide Rancho Esperero and Avenue and Avenida Valiente right of way dimensions. 3- Label Avenida Valiente as public or private. 4- Provide cross section detail for the interior driveways. Show the locations of the cross sections on all sheets. 5- Call out the dimensions and slopes of the proposed basins and provide construction details and cross sections including invert elevations for inlets and outlets. Additionally, call out any required slope protection based the soils report recommendations. 6- The proposed detention basin sediment trap does not appear that it will be effective in trapping sediments. Either provide additional verification that it will work properly or revise the design. Additionally, label the sediment trap on the plan. 7- Show the proposed storm pipe on section L/6 detail. 8- Provide additional x-sections between lots 2 & 3, west of lots 1-4, west of lot 58 and north of lot 1 to clarify the proposed drainage system. 9- Underground retention basins are difficult to maintain, which may reduce their percolation to unacceptable rates in the future. This may cause the basins to stay full for extended periods of time, which may cause them not work properly and may cause serious mosquito problems. Either provide bleed pipes for the proposed retention basins or sump pump systems to help drain the basins in case of emergencies. 10- The proposed perforated CMP pipes can rust and deteriorate due to water ponding for extended periods of time, which may cause damage to the driveways underneath which the basins will be installed. Revise the basins material. 11- The Soil's Report does not appear to include percolation rate test locations where the retention basins are proposed. 12- The assumption in Paragraph 5.2 of the Drainage Report, that the roof drainage will flow over the sidewalk as dispersed flow is unacceptable. The Construction Plan (i.e. the Grading Plan) Drainage Report should determine the locations of the roof drains and the associated sidewalk scuppers and the sizes of the required scuppers. 13- Show the sidewalk scupper east of lot 14, west of lot 34 and north of lot 18. 14- Q100 shown in the Grate Table in Section 5.3 of the Drainage Report and on Figure 6, should be 27 cfs and 29 cfs for CP's 3A and 3H respectively. Revise as needed. 15- The weir rating at CP 3M should use a discharge of 11 cfs, not 10 cfs. 16- The Maintenance Guidelines should include the retention basins in Paragraph "A". 17- It appears that the 30" SRP calculations in Appendix C, assume the spillway at the downstream end of the pipe as a trapezoidal channel to determine the tailwater, which is not acceptable. The spillway appears to connect to additional storm pipes that drain into the nearby wash. The tailwater should be determined based on those pipes headwater elevation. 18- The culvert design calculations use a very low Manning's Coefficient. For SRP's, Manning's coefficient of 0.024 is more appropriate. Revise as necessary. 19- Resubmit the redlined plan with future Grading Plan submittals. 20- Provide a detailed response letter with the next submittal that explains how the comments were addressed and references the exact locations/sheets where the revisions were made. Loren Makus, SWPPP Comments, 11/10/2004 The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is acceptable, however, it can not be approved until the Grading Plan is approved. Please be advised that the revised drainage scheme must be reflected on the SWPPP. |
| 11/17/2004 | Andrew Connor | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit approved tentative plat including landscape and NPP plans to continue review. |
| 12/02/2004 | David Rivera | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | December 2, 2004 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section David Rivera Senior Planner Comments: 1. The grading plan has been reviewed by Zoning Review Section but cannot approve the plan until it has been approved by the Engineering, and Landscape Review Sections and until all zoning comments or concerns have been addressed. 2. In addition to the approved and stamped tentative plat copies, two copies of the approved and stamped landscape and NPPO plans must be included with grading plan with the next submittal. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12/07/2004 | DELMA ROBEY | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |