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: FLOODPLAIN
Permit Number - T14OT01450
Review Name: FLOODPLAIN
Review Status: Completed
| Review Date | Reviewer's Name | Type of Review | Description | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/17/2014 | ELIZABETH LEIBOLD | ENGINEERING | REVIEW | Reqs Change | PROJECT: Rio Verde Erosion Protection Plans Engineering 1st Review ADDRESS: 3595 N Calle Rosario PREVIEWER: Elizabeth Leibold, P.E. CPM, CFM ASSOCIATED PAD: Rio Verde Village Planned Area Development ACTIVITY: T14OT01450 SUMMARY: The submittal for erosion protection project for Rio Verde was reviewed by PDSD Engineering. Before posting these PDSD Engineering comments, additional time for review was needed to obtain comments from PCRFCD and other reviewers, and time needed to review associated PAD Addendum C9-14-14. The following comments shall be addressed prior to re-submittal, and are based on prior discussions with staff for the initial preliminary reviews, intent of the PAD C9-12-04, as well as City of Tucson policies and codes in City of Tucson Drainage Manual and City of Tucson's Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Area Management Ordinance. A drainage report is required to be submitted per Technical Manual Section 4-04.2.1.1. COMMENTS: 1) Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.6: Since the project is located within the boundaries of the Rio Verde Village Planned Area Development (PAD) zone, include a reduced-scale map of the PAD on the first sheet, indicating the location of the portion being developed. Explain in response letter and show on plans how Rio Verde Village Planned Area Development (PAD) and associated addenda are addressed by this improvement. See also drainage report comments. 2) Admin Man Sec.2-06.2-06.3&4: Check this section of development package requirements and assure all formatting and contents requirements are addressed; for instance, provide index of sheets in the development package. 3) Tech Man Sec.2-01.4.1.C&D, 4-04.7.6.3, 2-01.4.1.E: Address the following comments for the geotechnical engineering evaluation report: a) Provide large scale, legible copies of exhibit C1.1 and a soil borings map with locations of borings. b) Revise geotechnical engineering evaluation report to include a discussion of slope stability of the soils either side of the proposed structure. Clarify how proposed developed conditions of the channel bank would be stable. c) Revise geotechnical engineering evaluation report to include clarification of why Hydrologic soil types A & B are indicated on GIS Map, yet soils investigation for PAD shows other conditions. Provide additional discussion of soils conditions at site in geotechnical engineering evaluation report. Clarify also whether erosion hazard protection development is proposed in/near the Arizo-Riverwash soils at south portion of the Pinaleno Stagecoach soil map unit. d) In geotechnical engineering evaluation report page 25, provide additional clarification of construction methods that are recommended to construct the vertical erosion protection infrastructure, including type of excavation equipment. e) Clarify in geotechnical engineering evaluation report that river-side face of structure would be designed to exposed face depth equal to only local scour depth. f) See drainage report comments for scour comments. g) Explain in geotechnical engineering evaluation report the tractive power analysis results and how this impacts design, including providing an exhibit showing the non-erosive locations on planview with S-line. 4) Tech Man Secs.4-04.7.4, 2-01.13, 2-01.4.1.C.5.3: Address the following drainage and grading comments related to grading construction and the geotechnical engineering evaluation report (these comments may be addressed in drainage report, plans and geotechnical engineering evaluation report): a) Update note 25 reference to Technical Manual Section 2-01. b) Add to note 30 that facilities will be constructed to geotechnical engineering evaluation as well, and that geotechnical engineering field and test reports shall be submitted with as-builts. c) The plans shall include addresses and phone numbers of the firms or individuals who prepared the geotechnical engineering evaluation report. d) Provide section profile of construction elevations of each section of the erosion protection structure. e) Only one detail was provided for the connection between the existing bank protection infrastructure and the proposed erosion protection structure. Provide additional details and cross sections for this connection that provides an angle that better matches the tangent of the north river bank. In other words, the proposed erosion protection structure should not be directing flows tot eh key-in / end of the existing bank protection but ties to the face of the existing bank protection. f) Include discussion in drainage report explaining why the existing utilities were not included to be protected by the east portion of the proposed erosion protection project. g) Clarify on plans the future locations of any trails or non-vehicular circulation to include any proposed bicycle paths from Market District. A note may be needed per Admin Man Sec.2-06.4.7.F. h) Delineate distances from each existing utility infrastructure on construction drawings. i) On page 25 in geotechnical engineering evaluation report, there is indication that there is a need for additional protection for the slopes along the un-named tributary, due to potential erosion behind the protective wall. Key-ins are required to a distance behind the erosion protection where the scour potential is negligible. Revise design to include key-ins at tributary. j) Show on plans staging area and material storage and access areas. Delineate, label and dimension each area on planviews. 5) Admin Man Sec.2-06.2-06.4.8, Tech Man Sec.2-01.4.1.C.5.5: Address the following easement comments: a) Utility correspondence was received regarding no objection to the project. Please address the following: i) There is a discrepancy of the expectations of TEP and the soils report/plans, with regard to the location of the utility line. TEP indicates they anticipate the TEP line 30-ft north of the structure and the soils report and plans show that the electric line is on the south side of the proposed infrastructure along the east section. Provide correspondence from TEP regarding the location of the structure. ii) Add any applicable notes to the plans for construction purposes (see SW Gas letter). b) Provide copy of existing drainage easement called out on sheet 2. Explain purpose and impact to proposed design. Explain and show in plans, design for how all other existing easement conditions are addressed. c) There is a concern that the construction disturbance area will be in proximity of utility easements; provide explanation how utilities are not incurring adverse impact from the construction or during construction of the erosion protection improvement. d) Clarify note 35 on sheet 2 that the easement is for construction, public access, and private drainage maintenance. 6) Tucson Code 26-11.2, Tech Man Sec.4-04.2.3: Address the following drainage report comments: a) Provide discussion in drainage report how Rio Verde Village Planned Area Development (PAD) and associated addenda are addressed by this improvement. b) Include discussion of proposed time frame of construction activity (outside of monsoon season). c) Discuss any disturbance of the deciduous riparian woodland (Shaw) or Riparian Habitat class B (PC) for the proposed erosion protection improvement. d) Substantiate and explain clearly in drainage report how the bend scour parameters for the scour calculations were derived, using Tech Man Sec.4-04.7.6. Address the following scour equation comments: i) Provide assumptions and referenced Army Corps study for parameters of general scour portion of the scour equation. ii) Re-calculate Bend Scour using correct value for top width. iii) Show all equations used for computing scour in drainage report with all individual scour components. iv) Include in drainage report diagrams showing how top width and radius of curvature were determined for the sections of the Tanque Verde watercourse adjacent to this proposed drainage improvement structure. e) On a drainage exhibit and on the plans, show pre- and post developed Erosion Hazard Setback lines on planviews for Tanque Verde Creek and tributaries. Include discussion in drainage report of the erosion hazard setback distances found in Tech Man Sec 4-04.7.6 per City of Tucson's Floodplain and Erosion Hazard Area Management Ordinance 26.7.2. f) On all planviews and drainage report exhibits, delineate and label FEMA 100-year limits for Tanque Verde Creek and tributaries adjacent to this project. g) On planviews and drainage report exhibits, label flowrates for Tanque Verde Creek and tributaries. h) Label current FEMA FIRM panels on planview for plans and on drainage report exhibit. 7) Tech Man Sec.4-04.2.3.1.5.G: Owner is indicated as Joseph A. Cesare for permit application; however ownership of the separate parcels is not the same for the parcels for the project improvements. During meeting 27OCT14 it was stated that the clarification of ownership would be provided in submittal package, however the plans are still unclear. At minimum, for prior to permit application approval, submit written authorization from Lawrence A Cesare (or any other owners that have construction activity proposed for this project on their parcel) that provides written approval from the offsite property owner to construct proposed improvement. Otherwise show and label temporary construction easement. Due to extent of comments, additional comments may be forthcoming. A meeting is required prior to resubmittal to assist with progress of project. For resubmittal package, provide 2 copies of revised Development Package sheets, copies of title reports for each parcel, written authorization for offsite drainage improvement, a drainage report, revised Geotechnical engineering evaluation report, and response letter. If you have questions or need to arrange for the meeting, call me at 837-4934. Elizabeth Leibold, P.E., CPM, CFM Civil Engineer Engineering Division Planning & Development Services Department City of Tucson |