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 ALL
Permit Number - T06BU00959
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/13/2006 | ANDREW CONNOR | NPPO | REVIEW | Denied | Submit a copy of the approved tentative plat including landscape and native plant preservation plans for reference. The grading application will be reviewed only when the approved documents are included in the submittal. |
| 07/27/2006 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Sierra Morado Unit 4 West Grading Plan, T06BU00959 Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 07/27/2006 The Grading Plan can not be approved at this time. We offer the following comments: GRADING PLAN: 1. Provide the site administrative address. 2. Replace General Notes #2 and #25 with a general note, which states that the project will be in compliance with City of Tucson Development Standard 11-01.0 (Excavation and Grading). 3. Revise General Grading Note #28 to include the following language: "Call for SWPPP inspection and pre-construction meetings. for a DSD engineering inspections, call IVR (740-6970), or schedule with a customer service representative at the development services department, or contact DSD engineering at 791-5550 extension 2101, or schedule inspections online at: http://WWW.CI.TUCSON.AZ.US/DSD/ONLINE_SERVICES/ONLINE_PERMITS/ONLINE_PERMITS.HTML". 4. Show a detail of Basin 3 West 12" CMP bleed pipe. 5. The "existing 50' sewer easement", called out within Street "A" does not have the recordation information. Additionally, it is not clear if it is still proposed for abandonment by the Final Plat. This comment was previously made and it was not addressed sufficiently. Clarify when the easement will be abandoned. Refer to Development Standard 7-01.4.0. for additional information. SWPPP: The stormwater pollution prevention plan does not meet the requirements of the general permit. Please revise the SWPPP to address the following requirements. We have received a copy of a letter from ADEQ after their review of a SWPPP for another project. Parts of this letter are applicable to this SWPPP and are reflected in the following comments. Furthermore, this SWPPP is very generic and provides very little specific direction to the operators. Comments from both ADEQ and EPA indicate that the SWPPPs must be specific and tailored to the project. The SWPPP must be revised to be specific to this site and to provide specific direction to the operators. The following comments are examples of elements that are incomplete or not sufficiently tailored to this site. The list is not all inclusive but is representative. 1. As previously commented: Part IV.C.3.c. Identify and clearly label on the map locations of structural and nonstructural controls identified in the SWPPP. Include the location of the washout area, locations of storage areas. The revised SWPPP shows material storage within theundisturbed open space. This is not an acceptable use of the undisturbed open space. 2. As previously commented: Part IV.D.2.c. Describe the practice and schedule to routinely remove offsite accumulation of sediment. Address both the removal of dirt tracked onto adjacent streets and deposits of sediment at outfall locations. 3. As previously commented: Part IV.D.5.b Describe where and what type of velocity dissipation devices will be used at discharge locations and along outfall channel. Provide specific instructions that discharge locations and outfall channels will be stabilized as soon as possible after construction. 4. As previously commented: Although the narrative of the SWPPP (page 7) indicates that a combination of silt fencing and straw bale barriers are proposed, the site map does not clearly indicate locations where each is appropriate. Provide specific direction to the operators. Further, the revised site map indicates the use of natural vegetation and trench berms for perimeter control. Provide sufficient documentation to substantiate the effectiveness of these measures as proposed in this SWPPP. 5. As previously commented: The SWPPP indicates that commonly used dust palliatives are describe in the "Stormwater Pollution Control Measures" section. Since this is a very large section of the SWPPP, provide more complete locating instructions. (This applies to all references to this section.) I did not find a discussion of the palliatives in this section. Provide adequate references to each of the control measures specified in the SWPPP. Each technical description should be sufficient to establish whether it is appropriate as specified. 6. Revise the notes provided at each basin to clarify that the sediment barriers may be removed from around basin area once the basins have been graded. Sediment barrier must remain at downslope project boundaries. Indicate that the low flow outlets must be blocked until the project site has been stabilized. 7. Part IV.D.4.b. In the discussion of temporary stabilization measures, indicate what stabilization efforts will occur. 8. On page 13 the "Non-Stormwater Discharges" section has a note in bold face type. The note describes a required element of the SWPPP that must be completed before the SWPPP is approved. 9. Part IV.D.5.a.i Describe the location, size and retention capacity of the drainage basin(s) and the areas that drain into them. Provide calculations to show that the basins will be able to store the complete discharge from a 2-year 24-hour storm. Since the response letter was essential non-responsive, a full review was difficult. In the response letter, specifically describe all revisions made in response to each comment. The SWPPP must be revised to meet the requirements of these comments. The entire SWPPP must be revised to be specific and to provide specific instructions to all of the operators of the project. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 520.791.5550 ext. 1161 or at loren.makus@tucsonaz.gov. Loren Makus, E.I.T. Senior Engineering Associate If you have any questions regarding the Grading Plan comments, you may contact Laith Alshami at 791-5550 x1195 or at Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov |
| 09/05/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 09/5/06 Development Services Department Zoning Review Section David Rivera Principal 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. Zoning could not verify that the grading plan was in compliance with the approved tentative plat. Please submit one copy of the CDRC approved and stamped tentative plat, landscape, and NPPO plans with the next grading plan submittal. 3. Zoning will re-review the grading plan on the next submittal to ensure compliance with the CDRC approved and stamped tentative plat. Additional comments may be forthcoming. 4. The tentative plat is under review and has not been approved as of this review date. Please ensure that changes made to the T.P are incoporated into the grading plan for consistency. |