Loading...
PC RES 2026-002P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2026-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES THEREBY DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DIRECTOR'S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 720 FT2 SECOND - STORY ADDITION AND 263 FT2 ROOF DECK TO AN EXISTING 2,467 FT2 SINGLE -STORY RESIDENCE FOR A NEW TOTAL STRUCTURE SIZE OF 3,187 FT2 (GARAGE INCLUDED), ALONG WITH ANCILLARY SITE IMPROVEMENTS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONTAINED IN THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT `A' (CASE NO. PLHV2024-0007). WHEREAS, on November 27, 2024, the Applicant submitted the requested application for a Height Variation Permit and Site Plan Review; and WHEREAS, on January 8, 2025, Staff completed an initial review of the application, at which time the application was deemed incomplete for processing due to missing information; and WHEREAS, on August 14, 2025, Staff deemed the application complete for processing after the Applicant resubmitted revised plans and additional information on multiple occasions. On that same day, a public notice announcing the proposed project was mailed to all property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News. Staff received 4 public comments in response to the proposed project and public notice, which are further evaluated throughout the sections of the staff report; and WHEREAS, on October 16, 2025, the Director of Community Development conditionally approved the requested Height Variation Permit and Site Plan Review and on the same day a Notice of Decision was sent out to all interested parties providing for, a 15 - day project appeal period; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2025, Staff received a timely written Appeal Letter of the Director's Notice of Decision from the adjacent property owner at 7361 Berry Hill Drive, Brent Meyer and Nancy Parsons (herein the Appellants); and WHEREAS, October 30, 2025, Staff received confirmation of payment for the Appeal request; and WHEREAS, on December 25, 2025, A public notice announcing the Planning Commission's consideration of the Appeal request was provided to the Appellants, the Applicant, property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site, interested parties, and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and P.C Resolution No. 2026-02 Page 1 of 13 WHEREAS, pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) Section 17.80.050(C), an appeal hearing before the Planning Commission shall be set within 90 days of the filing of the appeal, or not later than January 15, 2026; and WHEREAS, on January 27, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing to consider the. Appeal request, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project has been found to be categorically exempt under Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the California Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA. Specifically, the project includes an addition to an existing structure that is less than 10,000 ft2; is located where existing public services and facilities are available; is not in an environmentally sensitive area and none of the exceptions to the categorical exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines, section 15300.2 apply and specifically this project does not present any unusual circumstances. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The proposed project involves the construction of a 720 ft2 second - story addition to an existing 2,467 ft2 two-story residence for a new total structure size of 3,187 ft2 (garage included) measuring 21.75 feet in height along with ancillary site improvements, which include a 263 ft2 roof deck. Section 2: The Planning Commission determines the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 CCR 15301 (Existing Facilities) as the project includes an addition to an existing structure that is less than 10,000 ft2; is located where existing public services and facilities are available; and is not in an environmentally sensitive area. Furthermore, none of the exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines, section 15300.2 applies to the project and specifically the project does not present any unusual circumstances. Section 3: The Planning Commission finds that the Height Variation Permit and Site Plan Review for the construction of an 720 ft2 second -story addition to an existing 2,467 ft2 two-story residence for a new total structure size of 3,187 ft2 (garage included) measuring 21.75 feet in height from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets the finished grade to the highest roof ridgeline, which exceeds the 16 feet/ 20 feet by -right building height envelope, is warranted based on the following findings: P C. Resolution No 2026-02 Page 2 of 13 A. The Applicant has complied with the early neighborhood consultation process guidelines and procedures by notifying the local Homeowners Association and obtaining 7 signatures (70%) from properties within 100 feet and 18 signatures (29.5%) from properties within 500 feet of the project site. B. There are no viewing points or viewing sites that will be significantly impaired or impacted as a result of the proposed project. Additionally, the project site is not located within the City's Coastal Zone. C. The proposed project is not located on a ridge or promontory, nor located on a prominent mass of land that overlooks or projects onto a lowland or body of water on two sides. As such, this finding can be made. D. Views in the area are primarily oriented to the west consisting of the ocean, shoreline bluffs, and Santa Barbara Island. The proposed project over the 16 foot/20 foot "by -right" height limit would not significantly impair any views due to the topographical conditions in the area and the orientation of homes; where residences located to the west of the project site observe views in the opposite direction of the project site; residences located to the east of the project site have building pads approximately 2-10 feet higher than the project site in which the "by - right" building height of the project residence currently impairs views from these properties; residences located to the south of the project site observe views in the opposite direction of the project site, and properties to the north have building pads approximately 50 feet higher in elevation than the building pad of the project site and still maintain views over the proposed second story addition. E. There will be no significant cumulative view impairment by portions of the structure which exceed 16 feet in height. Due to the east to west downward sloping conditions and transitional slopes between side yards of properties along Berry Hill Drive, similarly constructed additions on neighboring properties will not create view impairments as properties which are located further east along Berry Hill Drive are located upslope and do not have any views which can be impacted by portions of the structure which are above 16 feet in height along Berry Hill Drive. F. The proposed addition will comply with all other code requirements, including but not limited to, setbacks, parking, maximum allowable lot coverage, and building height with the inclusion of a Height Variation Permit. G. The proposed project is compatible with the character of the immediate neighborhood in terms of the scale, architectural style, and setbacks. The size of the proposed addition (720 ft2) will result in the project residence being the 4th largest in the immediate neighborhood. The architectural style of the project will continue to be compatible with the immediate neighborhood as it includes various architectural elements and features such as the roof deck and siting of the second story, that are also observed in the neighborhood. The proposed project will P.C Resolution No. 2026-02 Page 3 of 13 incorporate finished materials such as stucco and wood siding, as well as a hip shingle roof, which is consistent with both the existing project residence and other homes in the neighborhood. Additionally, the minimum setbacks are all being maintained and the westerly side yard setback will be reduced to 5.42 feet which is a distance found to be consistent with other two-story residences in the area. H. The proposed project will not result in an unreasonable infringement of privacy. The proposed second story windows along the north elevation primarily observe views of the project site's rear yard and limited roof and rear yard views of the adjacent property at 7361 Berry Hill Drive. The west elevation of the proposed second story addition is designed with two clerestory windows with a sill height of 5 feet - 1 inch as measured from the finished floor of the second story addition, which primarily observe views of existing roof areas on the adjacent property at 7361 Berry Hill Drive. The east elevation of the proposed second -story addition is designed with several windows with views of existing front yard areas along Berry Hill Drive, where there is no expectation of privacy. The south elevation of the proposed second story addition includes a 264 ft2 roof deck that maintains views to the south and east that afford views of the ocean and of the public right-of-way. Section 4: The proposed ancillary site improvements including the installation of three new skylights, 263 ft2 roof deck, and new cupola on the roof, meet all the applicable Municipal Code requirements including, but not limited to setbacks, height, and lot coverage and privacy impacts in the RS -4 zoning district. Section 5: The Planning Commission has considered the basis for the appeal offered by the Appellants, and finds that they are without merit for the reasons described below: A. While the Appellants alleges that the plans shown during the Early Neighborhood Consultation process were inconsistent with the project plans that were approved by the Director and that the Applicants as well as Staff did not inform neighboring property owners of the revision between versions of the plans, the Applicants did comply with the Early Neighborhood Consultation requirement. They had submitted a signed Neighborhood Compatibility Consultation form indicating that the Appellants reviewed plans depicting a second -story addition and roof deck. While the project plans were revised following consultation, which is consistent with common practice, those revisions did not alter the fundamental nature of the project or invalidate the property owners' acknowledgements. Staff determined that the Appellants were consulted prior to formal submittal, that the plans reviewed reasonably described the proposed project, and that subsequent revisions did not negate compliance with the Early Neighborhood Consultation process. Additionally, the Appellants were provided access to updated plans through ongoing Staff communication and the public noticing process. P.C Resolution No 2026-02 Page 4 of 13 B. While the Appellants alleges that the proposed project is not consistent with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' Neighborhood Compatibility Guidelines as outlined in the Neighborhood Compatibility handbook, the Director determined that the project proposal does achieve neighborhood compatibility in terms of scale, architectural style, and setbacks, with the surrounding residences. In response to the Appellants' concerns, the design, siting, and setbacks of the proposed second -story addition were found to be consistent with existing development patterns in the area. The "lengthwise" placement of the second story along the western facade, the proposed westerly side yard setback, and the incorporation of a roof deck are all design elements found among nearby two-story residences, including properties both within and beyond the immediate neighborhood. The proposed addition aligns with existing lines of development with the direct access garage. Additionally, the proposed project maintains adequate separation from the Appellants' residential structure with an approximately 15'- 4" separation. While the project would result in the Appellants' property being located between two-story homes, Staff determined this condition to be compatible with the neighborhood due to the project's integration with the existing roofline, articulation provided by the roof deck, and maintenance of the streetscape rhythm. Additionally, roof decks, and front -facing balconies are established design features in the area, and the proposed roof deck helps reduce perceived bulk and mass when viewed from the public right-of-way. C. While the Appellants alleges that the project creates significant privacy infringements from the proposed front yard roof deck and second story windows, the Director determined that there is no unreasonable infringement of privacy on the Appellant's property. In response to the Appellants' concerns regarding the front - facing roof deck and second -story windows, Staff evaluated potential views and determined that views from the roof deck are primarily directed toward roof areas of the Appellants' residence and distant ocean views. Staff also noted that portions of the Appellants' property are already visible from the public right-of-way and that City guidelines, place greater emphasis on protecting outdoor privacy, with indoor privacy reasonably mitigated through window treatments. The proposed second - story windows along the westerly elevation are set at an elevated sill height, limiting direct views into neighboring properties, and would primarily overlook roof areas and limited portions of the courtyard. Additionally, a required egress window on the northerly elevation may afford partial views of the Appellants' rear yard, but Staff determined this to be a reasonable as these views primarily consist of the subject property's rear yard and far views of the Appellants' rear property line. D. While the Appellants alleges that the proposed project obstructs views of the peninsula ridgeline as seen from the Appellant's living room area and that Staff includes misleading photos, the Director determined that there is no significant view impairments of any protected views with the construction of this second -story addition. Staff determined that views in this direction consist primarily of residential properties along the peninsula, which do not qualify as protected near or far views under RPVMC §17.02.040(A)(14). Staff further found that the Appellants' primary P.C. Resolution No. 2026-02 Page 5 of 13 protected views are oriented westward toward the ocean, coastal bluffs, and offshore islands, and would not be significantly impacted by the proposed project. Staff also addressed concerns regarding the selection of photographic viewpoints, noting that multiple vantage points were evaluated during the site visit and that the photograph included in the project record accurately represented Staffs assessment of potential ridgeline impacts. E. While the Appellants alleges that Staff had mishandled their submitted public comments, Staff had ultimately included all public correspondence from the Appellant in the project case file and final report for the Community Development Director. The initial public comment that the Appellant is referencing had been mishandled was submitted prior to any formal submittal of a project application, and as such was not able to be filed into a case file. When the public comment was later delivered to Staff at a later date, this comment was included in the project case file, shared with the project Applicants, and analyzed by Staff. Section 6: Any interested person aggrieved by this decision or by any portion of this decision may appeal to the City Council. The appeal shall set forth in writing, the grounds for appeal and any specific action being requested by the Appellant. Any appeal letter must be filed within 15 calendar days of the date of this decision, or by 5:30 P.M. on Wednesday, February 11, 2026. A $3,193.00 appeal fee must accompany any appeal letter. If no appeal is filed in a timely manner, the Planning Commission's decision will be final at 5:30 P.M. on Wednesday, February 11, 2026. Section 7: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report, Minutes and other records of proceedings, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby adopts P.C. Resolution No. 2026-02 denying an Appeal and upholding the Director's conditional approval of a Height Variation Permit and Site Plan Review to allow the construction of a new 720 ft2 second -story addition and 263 ft2 roof deck to an existing 2,467 ft2 single -story residence for a new total structure size of 3,187 ft2 (garage included), along with ancillary site improvements subject to conditions of approval contained in the attached Exhibit `A'. P.C. Resolution No. 2026-02 Page 6 of 13 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of January 2026 by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONER CHRISTEN, GEORGE, O'CONNOR, SANTAROSA AND CHAIR NULMAN NOES: COMMISSIONER CHURA ABSTENTIONS: NONE RECUSALS: NONE ABSENT: VICE -CHAIR BRACH Br n r es, Director of Community Development; and, Secretary of the Planning Commission Eric Nulman Chair P.C. Resolution No. 2026-02 Page 7 of 13 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. PLHV2024-0007 7355 BERRY HILL DRIVE (HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW) General Conditions: Prior to the submittal of plans into Building and Safety plan check, the Applicant and/or the property owner shall submit to the City a statement, in writing, that they have read, understand, and agree to all conditions of approval contained in this Exhibit "A". Failure to provide said written statement within ninety (90) days following the date of this approval shall render this approval null and void. 2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project. 3. Prior to conducting any work in the public right of way, such as for curb cuts, dumpsters, temporary improvements and/or permanent improvements, the Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Director of Public Works. 4. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) shall apply. 5. Pursuant to RPVMC §17.78.040, the Director of Community Development is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions. Substantial changes to the project shall be considered a revision and require approval by the final body that approved the original project, which may require new and separate environmental review and public notification. P.C. Resolution No. 2026-02 Page 8 of 13 6. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards contained in these conditions of approval or, if not addressed herein, shall conform to the residential development standards of the RPVMC, including but not limited to height, setback and lot coverage standards. 7. Failure to comply with and adhere to all of these conditions of approval may be cause to revoke the approval of the project pursuant to the revocation procedures contained in RPVMC §17.86.060 or administrative citations as described in RPVMC §1.16. 8. If the Applicant has not submitted an application for a building permit for the approved project or not commenced the approved project as described in RPVMC §17.86.070 within 180 days of the final effective date of this Notice of Decision, approval of the project shall expire and be of no further effect unless, prior to expiration, a written request for extension is filed with the Community Development Department and approved by the Director. 9. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard shall apply. 10. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the City with the effective date of this approval. 11. This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified on the stamped APPROVED plans and is not an approval of any existing illegal or legal non -conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of such illegal or legal non -conforming structure is specifically identified within these conditions or on the stamped APPROVED plans. 12. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess material may include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded furniture, appliances or other household fixtures. 13. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. All construction waste and debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding property owners, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. P.C. Resolution No. 2026-02 Page 9 of 13 14. Construction projects that are accessible from a street right-of-way or an abutting property and which remain in operation or expect to remain in operation for over 30 calendar days shall provide temporary construction fencing, as defined in RPVMC §17.56.050(C). Unless required to protect against a safety hazard, temporary construction fencing shall not be erected sooner than 15 days prior to commencement of construction. 15. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, 9:00AM to 5:00PM on Saturday, with no construction activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in RPVMC §17.96.920. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights -of -way before 7:00 AM Monday through Friday and before 9:00 AM on Saturday, in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition. When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on -site to minimize off - site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and neighboring properties, subject to approval by the Building Official. 16. Exterior residential lighting shall comply with the standards of RPVMC §17.56.030. All exterior lighting shall be so arranged and shielded as to prevent direct illumination of abutting properties and of vehicles passing on the public right-of-way. Luminaries shall be of a low-level indirect and diffused type. All fluorescent bulbs or other lighting under canopies or on the building shall be covered with diffusing lenses and shielded. 17. For all grading, landscaping and construction activities, the Applicant shall employ effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering. 18. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY GRADING AND/OR BUILDING PERMIT, whichever occurs first, an earth hauling permit shall be approved by the Public Works Department. 19. The Applicant shall remove the project silhouette within seven (7) days after a final decision has been rendered and the City's appeal process has been exhausted. Project Specific Conditions: 20. The proposed project consists of the following improvements: • Construct a 720 ft2 second -story addition to an existing 2,467 ft2 single -story residence for a new total structure size of 3,187 ft2 (garage included). • Construct ancillary site improvements including a new 263 ft2 roof deck, new skylights on the first floor, and a new cupola on the roof. P.C Resolution No 2026-02 Page 10 of 13 BUILDING AREA CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to the framing inspection. 21. The proposed addition will measure 21.75 feet, as measured from the lowest finished grade covered by structure (elev. 278.51 feet) to the highest roof ridgeline (elev. 300.26 feet); and a height of 21.00 feet as measured from the highest elevation of the existing grade covered by the structure (elev. 279.26) to the highest roof ridgeline (elev. 300.26 feet). BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to roof sheathing inspection, based on the above -mentioned instructions. 22. The proposed project shall maintain setbacks as follows: Front (south) 19.83 feet Interior Side (west) 5.42 feet Interior Side (east) 12.92 feet Rear (north) 47.42 feet BUILDING SETBACK CERTIFICATION REQUIRED, to be provided by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to foundation forms inspection. 23. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved project shall maintain a maximum of 33% lot coverage.. 24. The project site shall maintain a minimum of two enclosed parking spaces at all times. An enclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than 9 feet in width and 20 feet in depth, with a minimum 7 feet vertical clearance. An unenclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less than 9 feet in width by 20 feet in depth. 25. Roof eaves shall not project into the required setback more than 6 inches for each foot of the required setback, provided that there are no vertical supports within the required setback areas. 26. All colors and materials for the structure and roof shall be as shown in the stamped APPROVED plans. 27. No more than 50% of any existing interior and exterior walls or existing square P.C. Resolution No 2026-02 Page 11 of13 footage may be removed or demolished. Residential buildings that are remodeled or renovated such that 50% or greater of any existing interior or exterior walls or existing square footage is demolished or removed within a two-year period shall be considered a new residence and shall then conform to all current development standards for that zoning district and the most recently adopted version of the California Building Code. 28. The height of the proposed skylights shall not exceed the highest ridgeline of the house. 29. All second -floor windows shall be maintained at the exact height specifications listed in the approved plan set date stamped October 16, 2025. 30. Any outdoor furnishings, accessories or plants located on a roof deck shall not exceed a height of eight feet or the bottom of the roof eave, whichever is lower, as measured from the finished floor of the deck 31. Any outdoor furnishings, accessories or plants located on a roof deck which exceed the height limits established in section 17 02 040 (View preservation and restoration), shall not significantly impair a view from surrounding properties. 32. The approved mechanical equipment unit shall be screened from view from adjacent public right-of-way with foliage or other appropriate screening. 33. The maintenance or operation of mechanical equipment, including but not limited to AC units or pool filters, generating noise levels in excess of 65dBA as measured from the closest property line shall constitute a public nuisance in accordance to Chapter 8.24 of the RPVMC. 34. Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.02.040(B)(4), The determination of a significant view impairment is based on how private and public trees collectively impair the overall view within the view frame. There are four Queen Palm Trees at 7355 Berry Hill Drive, which are part of a collective mass of trees in the center vicinity of the view frame from 7315 Berry Hill Drive (see Map and Figure Nos. 1-2). The two Queen Palm Trees located in the south corner of the front yard labeled 24 inches and 16 inches and the two Queen Palm Trees located in the front yard labeled 14 inches on the survey from GDS Land Surveying dated April 8, 2024 (see Figure No. 3) significantly impair the ocean view from the living room viewing area at 7315 Berry Hill Drive. To eliminate the significant view impairment of the ocean, the trees need to be trimmed to the house ridgeline. Yet trimming to such a height level will both injure the trees and create unsightly appearances visible from public rights -of - way and private adjoining properties because all of the trees' frond leaves will need to be trimmed. Therefore, the Palm Trees shall be removed. Lastly, Staff amended the foliage condition of approval by removing 7303 Berry Hill Drive as a viewing area. The full analysis with associated exhibits can be found attached to this report. P.C Resolution No 2026-02 Page 12 of 13 The owner of the property is responsible for maintaining, in perpetuity, all foliage on the property, which exceeds 16 feet in height, as measured from the base of the tree or which exceeds the lowest adjacent ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower, so as not to significantly impair the view from surrounding viewing areas. 35. Along west facing windows of second story addition the area of the windows below six feet to be and maintained as opaque, with an option to raise the sill height to six feet. 36. To address privacy from the roof deck, install foliage along the western side yard to be approved by the Director. PRIOR TO BUILDING AND/OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE: 37. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING AND/OR GRADING PERMITS, all applicable soils/geotechnical reports, if required by the Building and Safety Division, shall be approved by the City's Geologist. 38. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING AND/OR GRADING PERMITS, a drainage plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. P.C. Resolution No. 2026-02 Page 13 of 13