Match the approved grading plan and the as-graded report by permit, drawing and revision. The plan shows the design and the report shows what was observed during grading, so you need both. A later report date is a reason to check which plan version it covers, and the permit’s final status sits in a third record.
Separate the grading design, the observed work and the City record
The City’s deferred as-graded submittal page names a Grading Plan (As-Built) and a Geotechnical Report (As-Graded) separately. Its applicant workflow uses approved grading or right-of-way permits in Issued or Inspecting status. Those are conditions for submitting the report; completion is recorded later.
For the document-content distinction, the City’s 2008 geotechnical-report guide contrasts proposed work with observations and testing of encountered conditions. Its as-graded section connects the report to permits, approved plans, construction dates, mapping and differences from anticipated conditions. This dated guide is used here to describe records, not today’s deadlines or technical requirements.
| Compare these references | Question to resolve |
|---|---|
| Permit and drawing numbers | Do the plan and report identify the same file? |
| Plan revision and cited plan set | Which design does the report discuss? |
| Work dates and described area | Does the report cover the phase or location you need? |
| Change and review references | What supporting document explains a mismatch? |
The current submittal page requires City review and approval of construction changes before incorporation into construction documents. An uploaded drawing becomes an approved change only with that City approval, so keep the approval evidence beside the revised drawing or report.
When a later as-graded report cites an older plan revision
Imagine a fictional folder containing an approved plan labeled Revision C and a later-dated report that cites Revision B. The later date makes the report worth examining, and the different reference stays open until a record links them. Keep the report’s own citation as written.
Check whether the report’s description covers the same portion of the site and the same work period. A report might concern one phase while the drawing set includes more work. The documents answer that question; a matching street address only tells you they belong to the same property.
The useful next request identifies the exact conflict: Revision C in one record, Revision B in the other, with both dates and the known permit number. Ask for the associated approved change, report revision or City review record that addresses it. A general request for everything about the property can leave the same small but important gap unresolved.
If a later response connects the two versions, retain that explanation alongside the originals. If no connecting record is supplied, describe the unresolved reference and leave conclusions about the construction to the City or an engineer. This example is a records exercise; soil tests, site conditions and engineering adequacy are for qualified professionals.
For permit finalization, inspection approval, occupancy approval or current safety, retrieve the permit outcome itself; an as-graded report covers the grading observations.
Use DSD project summaries to locate the grading file
The current DSD Records page covers City permits, plans, maps and technical reports, and warns that some record types are unavailable. It lists OpenDSD, Permit Finder and Accela for permit or project status at City addresses from 2003 onward; as-graded report coverage within that range varies. This is the City DSD route; a San Diego County file belongs to a different jurisdiction.
The Records-linked project-information guide requires an online-services account. It documents DSD Permits, General Search and Record Number using a PRJ or PMT reference. Approval, Project Review and Inspection Plan by Permit are separate report options; Record Info also has Related Records.
A generated review summary and a consultant’s geotechnical report are different objects. Use a summary’s references to identify what you still need, and confirm the technical attachment is actually in the file before relying on a title.
Request the missing grading version or copy through a PRA request
Follow the City’s PRA records instructions with the record type, address or parcel reference, known project or drawing number and relevant period. Confirm City jurisdiction first. Those identifiers describe the request even if a search screen offers fewer fields.
For this task, name the approved grading plan and revision, as-built plan, as-graded report with consultant/date if known, approved change or related review response. State which item you already possess and which reference conflicts. Ask for existing records rather than a new technical interpretation.
Older project files may require an in-person records appointment. The PRA page describes pre-2018 files as likely physical, which describes storage rather than retention. Its separate copy conditions for protected architectural plans may also affect some grading attachments, so ask about inspection, copying permission and availability as separate questions.
If an older identifier is missing, the San Diego subdivision-card guide explains one source of historical clues. The ZAPP and Zone History guide helps distinguish parcel and record routes. Both lead you back to the technical file itself.
Send your PRA request with the exact revision conflict spelled out; a missing copy leaves the question open, so ask the City which record would close it.
City of San Diego DSD records and grading-submittal pages checked October 6, 2026.