• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Am I really that bad? (MAJOR whine)

M

MtnArch

SAWHORSE
Joined
Dec 25, 2009
Messages
535
Location
San Juan Bautista, California
Submitted a 2-story SFR to a local (California) jurisdiction 2 years ago (with calculations by a structural engineer) - had a 2-page plan check correction list (very fair - no complaints) from the jurisdiction plan checker. Permit issued, residence built with minor inspection correction notices.

GC decided to build the same plan on a different lot, same subdivision, and we submitted the revised drawings (with all updated code requirements to the structural calcs and drawings) in May to the same jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is grossly underfunded (thank you Board of Supervisors ... NOT!) and they chose to sub the PC out to a 3rd-party PC company.

After 8 weeks we received the **16-PAGE** plan check comment list from the 3rd-party!!!

Maybe 30% of the architectural comments are fair - I have no issues with them. Most are minor coordination issues; another 20% are debatable - yes there are questions, but we're talking about a 2-story residence and NOT a multi-story hospital! (And before some of you get your panties in a bunch, the entire set of architectural, structural and electrical drawings (on 24x36 sheets) totals 20 sheets, most with plans at 1/4"=1'-0". If you'd like to see the set I'd be happy to send you a PDF - just PM me).

My real question that I have to ask is:

- Was the first PC done by the jurisdiction plan checker really that bad, that they missed that many issues, or ...

- Is the 3rd-party PC'r trying to justify their plan check fee billed to the jurisdiction?

This 3rd-party PC'r is known for nit-picking things to DEATH - and I will be requesting them to justify (via code cite) some of their comments, and NOT just the usual Ch. 1 section that says they can ask for whatever they want.

(Sorry for the rant, but I can guarantee that 90% of what is usually submitted is issued a permit WITHOUT **ANY** of these comments!)
 
Alan,

In all fairness, I like to see the plans before I offer my opinion. Please email my work email address: "tgift" @ "ci.sandy.or.us"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Very interesting subject and without knowing any specifics, it does sound like overkill. Then again, we don't know the specifics. I'll take you up on your PDF offer just to take a look myself.

I will tell you as a 3rd party agency owner we do on occasion have a problem when we are not the ones doing the inspections and every time a contractor fails an inspection they blame the fact it was not on the prints. It is almost the city inspector against the 3rd party plan reviewer so we end up nit picking to keep ourselves out of hot water.

With that being said, this is a 2 story SFR so I can't imagine a 16 page response unless the prints were in crayon on craft paper.
 
If they can code justify everything than sounds like they know what thru are doing

And maybe the city pc just overworked and did not have enough time to do a page by page check
 
I would also like to see the Plan so PM me and I will provide an email address. I agree with Jeff's comments, but would add this. A 16 page review letter is ridiculous. Someone is Milking The Cow! When doing a plan review I limit comments to 10 to 15 items if that many exist. At that point I stop the review and call the DP. reject the plan and explain they need to make the correction noted and spend some time with the code book before I waste my time and their money.

In PA we have only five Days to approve or reject a sealed plan so I guess we have to be quick. 8 weeks is ridiculous.
 
Alan:

Per chance was the plan checking firm the one with the Latin word for truth in it's name? If so with a prior firm that they took over they were months in plan check constantly sending them back with comments like the title block being off by a quarter of an inch, this was back when the 1998 UBC was set to take over and I started going down there, at the time UPS trucks were trucking loads of plans into them from several AHJs with builders trying to beat the seismic provisions of the 98 code. The worst part was once their problems were resolved and they finally sent them back to the city the city plan checkers started going over them with a fine tooth comb, talking to them to resolve the problems I got the distinct impression that the city plan checkers feared for their jobs and were trying to prove that the outside firm was missing things. I spent months running between the engineers and architect trying to resolve the problems, and this was a relatively simple two story home.
 
PM's / e-mails sent to those who have asked for the set. Thanks for agreeing to take a look at it for me! Remember that I'm in California so it's the 2010 California Residential Code - which is based on the IRC but with California's usual tweaks and twists.
 
MtnArch you can always ask the AHJ to make the call on the issues that seem to be the sticking point not much the the 3rd party can do then as they work for them.
 
Let me guess they asked for documentation for this and similar requirements.

R302.10.4 Exposed attic insulation.

All exposed insulation materials installed on attic floors shall have a critical radiant flux not less than 0.12 watt per square centimeter.
 
David Henderson said:
MtnArch you can always ask the AHJ to make the call on the issues that seem to be the sticking point not much the the 3rd party can do then as they work for them.
Click to expand...
I will be doing that - not for everything (again, some of the comments are legitimate and I have no problem with those), but definitely for what I would consider overkill for a SFR.
 
mtlogcabin said:
Let me guess they asked for documentation for this and similar requirements.R302.10.4 Exposed attic insulation.

All exposed insulation materials installed on attic floors shall have a critical radiant flux not less than 0.12 watt per square centimeter.
Click to expand...
SHHH!!!! Don't give them any more ideas for the 2nd plan check!!!!
 
comments don't necessarily mean plan changes are required. When I was a plan reviewer, we had a dozen or so "boiler plate" comments. Most were informational.

I worked in a place that used a "standard" plan review checklist. Even if the answer was N/A, it showed up on the comment sheet. (The program took alot of storage space 20 years ago), so we printed and made copies for the file.

I'd be more interested in seeing their comments than the plans... at least to start.
 
MtnArch, I haven't read the other's comments because I didn't want to be influenced by what they have to say. I have made it a practice that while doing a re-inspection that was done by a previous inspector; I don't look at anything but what the first inspector wrote. It's unfortunate; but true that 10 plan reviewers can review the same plans and have 10 different correction lists (same goes for inspectors and inspections). I feel that if the jurisdiction had done the plan review the second time you wouldn't have this problem. I'm sorry that the process is often destructive; and I'm all in favor of plan reviewers and inspectors being required to quote prescriptive code (and not the catchall crap in chapter 1). Uncle Bob
 
I agree with UB in that when I do a reinspection, I don't reinspect everything... usually. I look at the first list and approve/disapprove from there.
 
peach said:
comments don't necessarily mean plan changes are required. When I was a plan reviewer, we had a dozen or so "boiler plate" comments. Most were informational.I worked in a place that used a "standard" plan review checklist. Even if the answer was N/A, it showed up on the comment sheet. (The program took alot of storage space 20 years ago), so we printed and made copies for the file.

I'd be more interested in seeing their comments than the plans... at least to start.
Click to expand...
The more I thought about this, the more I just had to ask:

How is this different from a plan set that has been submitted that includes notes/details that don't apply? Another thread on the forum has bashed drafters/RDP/etc. who didn't remove anything and everything that didn't apply to a project. I'm not saying it's right (on either side of the fence), just that there should be equal bashing!
 
So far I would have asked for the cut sheets for all engineered lumber used, either from the manufacturer or you or the engineer for each area used. You did, however post that that was already submitted last time so I assume it was separate from the prints. I am just looking at it when I have time but I wish I could get prints like this on a regular basis. Not done yet
 
we do inspections on hundreds of tenant improvements every year. I'm convinced designers get paid by the pound for plans BECAUSE there are pages and pages of N/A details.. (and maybe why so many N/A plan review comments)... all they usually need is a floor plan, reflected ceiling plan, MEP sheet.. (usually one will do the trick).. but it's never that easy. Boiler plate meets boiler plate...
 
First, let me say, 'Thank you for sharing your plan review dilemma with us at this forum.'

Second, I had to print up the plans to be able to review them, and was surprised to see how many pages of plans there were for such a simple house.

Thirdly, I did not see enough problems with the plans to merit 16 pages of comments. However, I see several items that raised questions or concerns... and will say that the more you provide, the more likely you will have correction items. In other words: "KEEP IT SIMPLE!"

Lastly, I do not post plan review comments publicly, nor will I bother with reviewing these plans. (Sorry.)
 
Thanks IG - I appreciate the time you took to even look at the drawings.

Here in Cali it sometimes seems that if you are a builder or drafter you can get by with a 5~6 page set of drawings, but if you are licensed you are expected to fully explain EVERYTHING - far beyond that required of the builder or drafter - hence the shear amount of drawings.

Also I fully acknowledge that there are legitimate comments from the plan checker. Some were the head slappers (How on earth did I ever forget to note THAT!) and others were "Ahh ... I've never had that one come up, but that's what the code asks for."

Lastly, I was not asking for anyone to do (another) plan check - just that I was venting my frustration on receiving what I considered an excessive comment list based on the amount of information I had shown on the drawings. And that it had been through the same jurisdiction once before with minimal corrections.

Thanks everyone for reading and participating - I enjoy coming to this forum and learning every day!
 
. . . I was venting my frustration on receiving what I considered an excessive comment list based on the amount of information I had shown on the drawings. And that it had been through the same jurisdiction once before with minimal corrections.
Click to expand...
It can depend on the reviewer.

I submitted plans for additional cooking equipment at a chain restaurant to code review company XYZ. Plans went through with maybe one minor notation.

A few weeks later, I submitted plans to add the same identical cooking equipment to another restaurant for the same chain, in the same municipality, to the same code review company. Probably the only difference between the two plan submittals was the floor plan layout. I had to revise and resubmit the plans for the second restaurant. The difference between plan approval and plan rejection was the person who performed the code review.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top