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: BILLBOARD-BLDG/ELEC30days
Permit Number - T10EL00752
Review Name: BILLBOARD-BLDG/ELEC30days
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 07/21/2010 | LEERAY HANLY | BUILDING-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Passed | previously approved. no changes |
| 07/21/2010 | LEERAY HANLY | ELECTRICAL-COMMERCIAL | REVIEW | Passed | previously approved with no changes |
| 08/16/2010 | GLENN MOYER | ADMINISTRATIVE | ADMIN REVIEW | Denied | BRC Comments Sheet 1 of 3 No comments. Sheet 2 of 3 1. The resubmittal (7/13/10) is mostly unresponsive to the Comment #1 (6/14/10) provided on the previous resubmittal (5/14/10). The included photographs do provide some information on the state of damage to the relevant parts and the time that such damage occurred, but provide no documentation at all as to how the damage occurred or as to the circumstances under which the damaged parts were removed from the site. The resubmittal indicates that the damage occurred due to vandalism (Valencia Letter, June 18, 2010), but does not provide a corroborating police report. Furthermore, the applicant did not follow the procedures for emergency repairs (Exhibit 9, Section 3), which require the damaged parts to remain on site. The settlement agreement requires like for like replacement of electrical parts (Exhibit 9, Section 2(x)), but a prerequisite for such replacement is that the parts actually exist. Parts removed from the site, except when authorized by a Permit, will be considered not to exist and ineligible for replacement. Nonetheless, an exception will made in this case on the sole basis that the damage was documented at the same general time that other fluorescent light fixture relocations were occurring under the terms of the settlement agreement and the damaged parts may have been mistakenly removed from the site in anticipation of already planned replacements. Given this exception, however, and given the uncertainty of the exact circumstances under which the damage and parts removal occurred, the like to like provisions need to be strictly construed and the missing parts must be restored to the exact same configuration as existed prior to the damage (i.e., a service drop to a like replacement pole installed at the same location and that contains the meter socket box, meter, disconnect, and associated riser conduit and weatherheads). Upgrades to the service panel and meter socket box necessary to meet current NEC and TEP requirements respectively and that have previously been approved will be accepted here as well. The Partial Vicinity Map, Partial Riser Diagram, and Elevation on Sheet 2 need to be revised to reflect these comments. Sheet 3 of 3 No comments. |
Final Status
| Task End Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/07/2010 | CPIERCE1 | OUT TO CUSTOMER | Completed |