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 - T06BU01361
Review Name: RESUBMITTAL - GRADING ALL
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 08/09/2006 | 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 for compliance only when the approved documents are included in the submittal. |
| 08/14/2006 | LAITH ALSHAMI | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Denied | Laith Alshami, Engineering and Floodplain Review, 08/16/2006 Sierra Morado Unit 3, phase 2 Grading Plan Comments: 1. 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". 2. Replace the words "approved Plans" in General Grading Note #1 with "Approved Grading Plans". Additionally, revise the note to state that the Grading Plan is the only acceptable construction plan. The Contractor may not use any other plans, such as the approved Tentative Plat, for construction purposes. 3. Remove General Notes #2 and #25, as they do not apply. 4. Show the proposed slope and detention/retention setback lines as recommended by the Geotechnical Report. 5. Since the Grading Plan is the only construction plan that shall be used onsite, show all relevant construction and grading information on cross-section details 10/3. Showing the required details on the Landscape Plan is not sufficient. 6. Both washes impacting this development are called out as "Civano Wash". Revise as necessary. 7. It appears that some trees and bushes are proposed in front of the detention/retention basin's inlet and outlet, which may impact the efficiency of the basin's operation. Address this issue and revise as necessary. 8. The Grading Plan shall be revised to reflect the Drainage Report and Tentative Plat revision. 9. The proposed channels south of Bilby Road appear to be offsite within Bilby Road right of way and the State Land to the south. Provide written permission from the City and the State that allows the installation of the channels. 10. 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. If you have any questions, I can be reached at 791-5550 x1195 or Laith.Alshami@tucsonaz.gov The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan does not meet the requirements of construction general permit. The SWPPP must be revised in accordance with the following comments: 1. In recent and past meetings with EPA and ADEQ representatives as well as copies of review letters from ADEQ, it has become clear that SWPPPs should be tailored to the specifics of the site and should not be overly generic. In order to be approved, the plan must be complete and must provide specific directions for pollution prevention activities and facilities. 2. The general permit defines two general classes of operators that must be identified in the SWPPP. The first class of operator is the party that has "operational control over construction plans and specifications (see definitions Part IX, page 31 of the CGP) The second class of operator is the party that "has day-to-day operational control of those activities at a project that are necessary to ensure compliance with a SWPPP for the site." Each party that qualifies as an operator must be specifically identified in the SWPPP. Part IV.C.1 3. The contractor's report indicates that trench-berms will be used for sediment control at the downslope boundaries of the project. The CalTrans manual included in the SWPPP indicates that the trench berms are not suitable as a sediment trapping measure. See page 2 of SS-9 in the CalTrans section. For sediment control use appropriate selections from the CalTrans manual Section 4 or from another appropriate reference. This also applies to the use of undisturbed vegetation as a sediment control measure. Refer to the included section from CalTrans. 4. Part IV.C.2.c. Indicate the total area of site and estimate of total area expected to be disturbed. The total area must include all of the offsite construction area and the undisturbed onsite area. 5. Revise the detail notes that indicate that detail 4 will be used along 36th Street from Park Avenue to Kino Parkway. (This is an example of the plan being specific to this site.) 6. Provide correct references at the matchlines on the site plan. 7. 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 and any other required or referenced BMP. 8. Part IV.D.5 The SWPPP shows structural controls in the floodplain, the SWPPP must document why effective controls could not alternatively be placed outside of the floodplain or the SWPPP must be revised so that the structural controls are outside of the floodplain limits. The SWPPP also shows structural controls within the WASH ordinance study area. All such disturbance in the study area must be approved in the WASH review process. 9. Provide a clear reference location for all referenced BMP in the SWPPP. 10. Provide calculations to show that the basins will be able to contain the total discharge from a 2-year 24-hour storm. The calculations in the drainage report have different criteria than the requirements of the general permit. 11. Part IV.D.4.b. Provide a clear discussion of the temporary and interim stabilization practices that are expected to be used for inactive areas of the project area. 12. Part IV.D.8.c. Describe BMPs for managing concrete truck washout and surplus concrete discharge. 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 |
| 09/18/2006 | DAVID RIVERA | ZONING | REVIEW | Denied | 09/18/2006 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. Alignment of the two handicapped access ramps at the corner of Franklinia Tr. and Liliy Magnolia way must be addressed. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10/12/2006 | CINDY AGUILAR | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |
| 10/12/2006 | SUE REEVES | REJECT SHELF | Completed |