I believe that part of the problem has to do with the differences between legally what is called for and what is actually done. In many jurisdictions common practice varies considerably from what is legally required.
While California is unique I do not believe that there is anything special in the local laws on this topic. The reality is that for most jurisdictions the 2007 CBC is essentially the same as the 2006 IBC.
Yes the Owner is expected to reproduce the approved permit drawings as needed by all of the trades.
yes there are a number of local jurisdictions that want to see all corrections or changes to the documents. An RFI response that explains where the information is or provides an interpretation need not be brought to the attention of the agency.
I believe your interpretation to be creative and a way to rationalize what is actually done in many jurisdictions. Still I would suggest that you touch base with ICC on this issue. I stand behind my statement that this position will result in a strong reaction from building officials.
I support your effort to start a dialogue with building officials regarding specifications. I am concerned that when the article is published by ICC that the backlash regarding building from non-approved drawings will detract from the discussion on specifications.
I find this an interesting discussion. However, my experience has been much different. We are typically dealing with local officals who have limited budgets that are still decreasing. They don’t have time to review every aspect of the project, nor can they keep up with the demanding schedules.
I do believe that it is our responsiblity as professionals to make sure all the details. For the most part, the officials I have dealt with do a good job of making sure the big picture is covered, and that they are satisfied we have paid attention to the details.
I am of the opinion that to much oversight is a waste of tax payer money, and forces the professionals to waste time better spent.
On reflection the big question is not what is legally required but rather what is the expected way of doing business.
If you work in a given jurisdiction you develop a comfort level with what the agency expects and what you can get away with, but this can cause problems when dealing with a new jurisdiction.
Some firms that haven’t worked in certain California jurisdictions may have to operate more formally while other jurisdictions may be less formal. We are doing a project in upstate NY where it appears they have a more relaxed understanding of building code enforcement.
My observation/belief is that as jurisdictions get more “professional” and make more of an effort to enforce the building code they will be more formal in how they deal with changes during construction. The question is how do you find out the local practices.
Every one should not be judged by California-- that is an entirely different code environment, with the code process and the administration replete with very strong personal attitudes.
There will always be differences in approaches to the codes. Uniformity even within states is non-existant; too many variables exist that cannot be resolved.
Ask any agency how they want changes handled-- it’s that simple!
So long as funding and staffing are always in contention there will be problems within code adminsitration-- money, time and people are always at odds and so each jurisidiction comes to a demeanor they can live with, and as close to “perfect” legally as they can.
Bottom, line is that the code agency should have a history, in its files, of the project that is completely and accurately documented.
I work in CA and have to deal with both local code officials & Division of the State Architect (“affectionately” referred to as DSA)
My real response to your first paragraph would be inappropriate here so read it as “NO KIDDING!”
We’ve had discussions about the possibility of doing away with DSA, but after having dealt with some local code officials here, I tend to tell my people to “Be cafeful what you wish for!”
Oh yeah, in addition I would expect that not too many plan reviews with the LA, Orange, & San Diego county fire authorities are going to happen this week!
There are something like 13 or so individual brush fires occurring in So. Calif. as I write this!
In all of your coments we can only wish that you “not get burned”!!!
State review agency in Ohio-- 12 weeks to permit
Sate review agency in IN-- each Plan Examiner gets 8 projecs at the start of the day and returns 8, finished[!!!] at the end of the day, regardless of the size and complexity of the projects!
The pattern I see here is that some jurisdictions, like the State of Indiana, make a conscious effort to get plan reviews handled in a timely manner. They make a commitment, no doubt for economic reasons, to get it done.
A few years ago the City of Houston instituted a “guaranteed” turn around time policy and, I think, it was somewhat successful initially. I have not had to deal directly with plan approvals lately and I do not know if the city has been able to maintain its goals. I do believe that this kind of policy and its successful execution is a matter of business and bureaucracy working together for the public good. Remember, bureaucracy does not have to be a “four-letter word.” An effective and efficient one can be a good thing. Unfortunately, in any system where certain individuals are not directly accountable to their “customers” there can be problems and someone is sure to get his ox gored at some point. Whether that is justified or not the complainant will cry foul (if his goose gets cooked does he cry “beeve?”).
Mark, just one more observation: In my experience, especially in small municipalities undergoing rapid growth, plan reviews tend to be more rigid (sometimes Draconian) until a point where sufficient and sufficiently trained and experienced review staff are in place. Then, I think, an understanding of the intent of the codes is apprehended. After that point, if the interpretation is not more liberal it is at least more reasonable.
We are fortunate to have people like Ralph and others who have been on the “other side of the table” and can help us to try on the plan reviewer’s shoes.
They won’t cure all of your code agency ills, but I have a couple of documents that may give you some added insight and perhaps a new hint or two in how to address the codes and approach the agencies.