Architect contract limitations???

[mtlogcabin]

The powers to be are trying to implement policy that all review comments from all department be directed to the principle design professional at one time. They believe that this will put the onus on the DP to gather all responses and resubmit at the same time thus reducing city staff time



Do architects contractually hire and/or oversee civil drawings, landscape architects, fire suppression and alarm Nicet designers and others that are part of a project. there are a lot of small architectural firms that may provide drawings for a building and nothing else for the project site. I just don't see how this will work.

I appreciate all input pro or con on doing it this way.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The powers to be are trying to implement policy that all review comments from all department be directed to the principle design professional at one time. They believe that this will put the onus on the DP to gather all responses and resubmit at the same time thus reducing city staff time

View attachment 15118

Makes sense.

Do architects contractually hire and/or oversee civil drawings, landscape architects, fire suppression and alarm Nicet designers and others that are part of a project. there are a lot of small architectural firms that may provide drawings for a building and nothing else for the project site. I just don't see how this will work.

There is no single way of hiring a design team. In some very large firms, all those disciplines will be in-house. In the small and mid-size firms where I worked, the structural, M/E/P, civil engineering and landscape architecture were by other firms. In some cases we hired them as subconsultants, in other cases the owners elected to engage the other specialties directly.

At my current job, I have reviewed construction documents for outlets of national chains. In one recent case, the architects were in Florida and the engineers were (if I recall correctly) in Oklahoma. For another project, a tenant re-fit in an existing strip mall, the national chain hired an architect from Texas to design the alterations and the owner hired a local architect to design the "shell prep" work. Needless to say, the two sets of drawings were not coordinated at all.

Your powers that be cannot (legally) dictate to a property owner how they must structure their design contracts. If the architects and all the engineers are hired individually and directly by the owner, then there is no "principle design professional." What you perhaps CAN do is mandate that all revisions and resubmittals shall be complete sets, submitted at the same time by the applicant -- but you can't demand that the owner hire and architect but not hire the other consultants directly.

 

[Yikes]

Mtlogcabin, what is it about separate reviews that causing the city staff to spend excess time?
Is it that a particular department “A” will complete its review ahead of the other departments “B, C, D…” etc. , then Dept. “A” gets pulled back into it to recheck a final “conformed” set of plans that picked up all the other department’s comments, just to make sure that some other corrective work did not bring the final plans out of compliance with Dept. “A”?

 

[steveray]

Mtlogcabin, what is it about separate reviews that causing the city staff to spend excess time?
Is it that a particular department “A” will complete its review ahead of the other departments “B, C, D…” etc. , then Dept. “A” gets pulled back into it to recheck a final “conformed” set of plans that picked up all the other department’s comments, just to make sure that some other corrective work did not bring the final plans out of compliance with Dept. “A”?

Lets just say that you get A drawings with rated walls and then duct drawings that show the dampers, but not the wall ratings, a month later.....Now you have to break out the A drawings, get refamiliar to the plan review you did a month ago and try to figure out if it works and then you will end up somehow assigning the responsibility to someone to fix...

 

[BN4537]

You can't control their contracts, but you could put wording on your application that the applicant is responsible for all comments. A condition of working with your jurisdiction is that someone is assigned to be the point of contact.

Basically, the applicant is setting up a transaction with the jurisdiction where the jurisdiction departments review the plans and the applicant agrees to be the point of contact for the jurisdiction. How the applicant and all the other players contractually relate to one another is irrelevant to the jurisdiction. The jurisdiction isn't making them engage in a complicated contractual hodgepodge, the jurisdiction is just not going to go to extra work to accommodate their contractual hodgepodge.

It's no different than any other transaction between private companies. If you do this, we will do that. If we can't come to an agreement that is mutually beneficial, you can go find someone else to work with, no hard feelings.

 

[BN4537]

A similar situation to when you show up at final inspection and some critical code items are not in yet, but the contractor wants a CO to close out his contract with the owner because he has finished the work in his scope and the owner will do the rest.

We don't care how they contracted with each other, the agreement was that we issue a building permit to an applicant for a project and we don't issue a CO until it's done.

 

[Joe.B]

Do you have this in your code?

[A] 107.3.4 Design professional in responsible charge.
Where it is required that documents be prepared by a
registered design professional, the building official shall
be authorized to require the owner or the owner's authorized
agent to engage and designate on the building permit
application a registered design professional who shall act
as the registered design professional in responsible charge.
If the circumstances require, the owner or the owner's
authorized agent shall designate a substitute registered
design professional in responsible charge who shall
perform the duties required of the original registered
design professional in responsible charge. The building
official shall be notified in writing by the owner or the
owner's authorized agent if the registered design professional
in responsible charge is changed or is unable to
continue to perform the duties.
The registered design professional in responsible
charge shall be responsible for reviewing and coordinating
submittal documents prepared by others, including phased
and deferred submittal items, for compatibility with the
design of the building.

 

[tmurray]

I implemented this policy when I ran a building department. We were having an issue where we would give some on a list of things, they would do a couple of them and then contact us for an update (they expected a review every time they gave us something).

This improves efficiency and reduces error by:
Everyone is only looking at something once.
Everyone is looking at the same set (version) of drawings.

Our comments on the application were directed to the applicant (sometimes RDP, sometimes not). In my opinion, comments should always go back to the applicant. They get to disseminate them to the responsible party.

 

[arwat23]

Do architects contractually hire and/or oversee civil drawings, landscape architects, fire suppression and alarm Nicet designers and others that are part of a project. there are a lot of small architectural firms that may provide drawings for a building and nothing else for the project site. I just don't see how this will work.

I work for a small firm and we only do the architecture sheets. MEP, Civil, Structural, and Landscape are all done by others, usually the same consultants for all of our projects. Most AHJs in my area require all of this to be complete and submitted at the time of application, otherwise we get a mountain of comments. Fire alarms / suppression are almost always deferred and completed by the contractor later (most AHJs have said they prefer this).

 

[Yikes]

Lets just say that you get A drawings with rated walls and then duct drawings that show the dampers, but not the wall ratings, a month later.....Now you have to break out the A drawings, get refamiliar to the plan review you did a month ago and try to figure out if it works and then you will end up somehow assigning the responsibility to someone to fix...

Thanks, this clarification helps. The issue appears to be cross-coordination between disciplines. I think there are several approaches instead of requiring all plans at once.

1. Treat the separate mechanical plan check as a "deferred submittal". IBC 107.3.4.1 requires any deferred submittals to first be reviewed by the building RDP for conformance with the design intent, including related building code compliance issues. The building RDP is required to attest they have coordinated it with the original building plan check. In my experience, our attestation has been our "shop drawing stamp".

2. Same as #1, but at time of original plan check / request for deferred approval, your condition of approval includes a standard checklist of items that will require to be shown on the MEP plans. For example: "Indicate all locations where mechanical systems penetrate fire rated assemblies or are enclosed in shafts. Indicate ratings of all dampers and assemblies; indicate their power source and means of actuation. Dimension all proposed exhaust terminations within 10' of any building openings or property lines." Etc.

3. As an architect, this next option is not my favorites, so I'm conflicted about mentioning it: City of LA eliminated IBC 107.3.4.1 "deferred submittals" when they adopted the model code. This requires all deferred submittals as a Modification to the approved cade (similar to IBC 104.10). The building RDP has to make an application (including payment of a fee) and explain how the deferred submittal will still meet all code requirements. Essentially, if you don't have the ready-made checklist in #2, it makes the building RDP generate the checklist of items to be shown on the future deferred submittal. so the city collects a fee just for considering the deferred submittal, then the city collects another plan check fee for the submittal itself. It has actually become a cash cow for the building department, and they have generated so much revenue that they are under investigation for overcharging customers.

I should clarify that LADBS uses the deferred approval/modification process for things like roof truss shop drawings, elevator shop drawings etc. They actually treat all MEP plans as a completely different plan check, routed to a different plan check engineer, paid with separate plan check fees, and in my experience the MEP plan checkers typically don't review the architectural plans for fire ratings. The field inspectors, however, do look closely and will issue correction notices during construction if the design team failed to coordinate it.

Recently on my accessible dwelling unit architectural plans, I have been showing and dimensioning all outlets and switches at the kitchen elevations. However, I add this note: "Electrical component locations are shown solely to demonstrate dimensional requirements for access compliance per CBC. Electrical components are to be reviewed for electric code compliance under separate electrical plan check/permit."

 

[tmurray]

Only thing I would comment for deferred submittals is that can become challenging for building departments to administer. It works really well when you have a well run job. It works terribly when you have a poorly run job. A lot of building departments only do deferred submittals when they absolutely have to.

Sometimes we are getting the deferred submittals when the trades are being installed or have already been installed. I had one job where the work was already done and signed off by the engineer responsible for that trade before I got the submittal, but there were fundamental code violations that caused the whole system to need to be replaced.

Just remember, good RDPs tend to work with other good RDPs. Bad RDPs tend to work with bad RDPs. Good RDPs tend to not know how bad RDPs are. We do. We have to work with everyone. and some of the rules we need to make are solely because of something one or more bad RDPs have done.

 

[steveray]

Only thing I would comment for deferred submittals is that can become challenging for building departments to administer. It works really well when you have a well run job. It works terribly when you have a poorly run job. A lot of building departments only do deferred submittals when they absolutely have to.

Sometimes we are getting the deferred submittals when the trades are being installed or have already been installed. I had one job where the work was already done and signed off by the engineer responsible for that trade before I got the submittal, but there were fundamental code violations that caused the whole system to need to be replaced.

Just remember, good RDPs tend to work with other good RDPs. Bad RDPs tend to work with bad RDPs. Good RDPs tend to not know how bad RDPs are. We do. We have to work with everyone. and some of the rules we need to make are solely because of something one or more bad RDPs have done.

We do accomodate....Just maybe not as much as they would like....Standard note.....

NOTE: A lack of trades plans at this time may delay the project after the building permit gets issued.

 

[Yikes]

Honestly, even if I turned in both the architectural and MEP plans together, I would not expect the mechanical plan checker to compare the SFD locations and ratings vs the wall and floor/ceiling assembly ratings. That would be great if they did it, but my expectation is that I'll get a generic correction back that says "show how duct and pipe penetrations comply with the wall, floor/ceiling and roof assembly smoke and fire rating requirements shown in the architectural plans", putting the burden back on me as the RDP.

 

[mtlogcabin]

We have a site review committee process. They are now requiring complete contract drawings at the time of site review application and approval. I am trying to get them to understand the undue burden/cost this is creating if the actual start of construction is 12 to 18 months out which is not unusual in this climate.

 

[Yikes]

We have a site review committee process. They are now requiring complete contract drawings at the time of site review application and approval. I am trying to get them to understand the undue burden/cost this is creating if the actual start of construction is 12 to 18 months out which is not unusual in this climate.

Lemme get this straight: down here, "site review" means a preliminary consultation, mostly for checking general conformance major major zoning code (building mass and envelope) and fire code (access road) issues, to point out any discretionary approval requirements, and to give the utility providers a sneak preview of upcoming capacity / service needs. The building department usually comes back with a technically accurate but practically useless comments like: "comply with applicable code at time of permit".

Are you saying that full CDs must be done just to get that kind of preliminary site review - -not even the actual plan check?
If so tell your city they are already far exceeding anything that we crazy Californians could have dreamed up.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

It looked to like what mtlogcabin was talking about was requiring full construction documents for zoning application and review.

That's crazy.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Yankee that’s it exactly
We have always offered simultaneous reviews with zoning, public works, parks, fire and building if the developer was ready to go that route.
Now it is asinine to try and implement such a city review procedure

 

[tmurray]

OH. I completely understand now.

We had someone get excited when they passed the development review and received approval but then got jammed up at the building department review and complained that the "design was already approved". This went to my council and I had to explain that it was infeasible that a developer invest in full construction drawings on the chance to bet approved to build a building.

These were my primary education points with senior management/council:
1. Planning and development approval is not guaranteed. Developers can ensure a development meets all of the zoning requirements, but ultimately there is no guarantee of approval.
2. Building approval must be granted when the plans demonstrate compliance with the building code. There is functionally no risk for developers here.
3. Given the comparatively high degree of risk at the planning and development stage, lower cost generally only conceptual drawings are required. The cost to risk assessment for developers is generally acceptable.
4. Full construction drawing sets are very expensive to produce. given that there is functionally a guarantee of acceptance once code compliance is shown, the risk is generally acceptable to developers at this level too.
5. Increasing the costs at the planning and development stage could unbalance the current cost to risk ratio for developers and would likely increase the barriers to development.

If they want to increase the costs that early on, they need to decrease the risk of rejection. If they don't do that, they run the risk of negatively impacting development.

 

[steveray]

OH. I completely understand now.

We had someone get excited when they passed the development review and received approval but then got jammed up at the building department review and complained that the "design was already approved".

Yep...been there...

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Yankee that’s it exactly
We have always offered simultaneous reviews with zoning, public works, parks, fire and building if the developer was ready to go that route.
Now it is asinine to try and implement such a city review procedure

We won't start a building permit review until they have site plan approval.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

OH. I completely understand now.

We had someone get excited when they passed the development review and received approval but then got jammed up at the building department review and complained that the "design was already approved". This went to my council and I had to explain that it was infeasible that a developer invest in full construction drawings on the chance to bet approved to build a building.

These were my primary education points with senior management/council:
1. Planning and development approval is not guaranteed. Developers can ensure a development meets all of the zoning requirements, but ultimately there is no guarantee of approval.
2. Building approval must be granted when the plans demonstrate compliance with the building code. There is functionally no risk for developers here.
3. Given the comparatively high degree of risk at the planning and development stage, lower cost generally only conceptual drawings are required. The cost to risk assessment for developers is generally acceptable.
4. Full construction drawing sets are very expensive to produce. given that there is functionally a guarantee of acceptance once code compliance is shown, the risk is generally acceptable to developers at this level too.
5. Increasing the costs at the planning and development stage could unbalance the current cost to risk ratio for developers and would likely increase the barriers to development.

If they want to increase the costs that early on, they need to decrease the risk of rejection. If they don't do that, they run the risk of negatively impacting development.

That's an excellent summary.

 

[tmurray]

That's an excellent summary.

I was very lucky that when I presented this information to council that they were very receptive to it. It also helped that a couple of other developers who were well known to our council happened to be present (for other reasons, we did not stack the attendance) and indicated that this is really the only feasible way for it to work and if they asked for full construction sets up front, they would just not develop there.

Probably the most important thing was putting the choice back to council. I always felt it was my job to give them the education around their options and leave the choice to them. I really didn't like giving them a recommendation unless specifically asked for it. A lot of the time, it was pretty obvious what the recommendation would be based on the pros and cons to the options.

 

[Yikes]

Until recent changes in California law, some local communities made the approval process so risky and difficult that no new affordable housing was being built.
Funding sources such as our Tax Credit Allocation Committee required a zoning conformance letter indicating the project only required ministerial approvals, with no remaining discretionary approvals required. Meanwhile, even if you had obtained zoning approvals, the Design Review Board would not approve final design until ALL exterior features had been reviewed in detail, down to the exhaust grille locations, landscape backflow preventer, DCDA model#, etc.
In other words, the design review process essentially required construction document level of detailing just to apply for affordable housing funding reservations - - functionally the same as what the OP and tmurray were dealing with.
You can imagine a not-for-profit affordable housing provider trying to convince their board to gamble all those up-front design/ construction document fees on whether they might have a viable project one year later; and trying to convince the property seller to lock into escrow for a year or more.
Statistically it was shown that the average housing development in that city took 30-48 months form initial meeting with the city to permit ready-to-issue.

Rather than reform the system and simplify their process, the city opted instead to have their housing department buy up land and hold it for future development, then offer predevelopment funding to developers to create the CD plans and shepherd it through the process. IOW, the city had to assume all the financial risk in order to attract affordable housing development.

More recently, California has passed statewide laws allowing by-right development, and mandating that any design standards be objective and measurable, essentially eliminating the need for discretionary approvals.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Only thing I would comment for deferred submittals is that can become challenging for building departments to administer. It works really well when you have a well run job. It works terribly when you have a poorly run job. A lot of building departments only do deferred submittals when they absolutely have to.

The older and grumpier I become, the more I move to the "get your poop in one cohesive unit, then I will evaluate your project."

Not that it helps. We've got one builder now who tries to change the plan literally every week. We've told him the next change is going to be a new application. Building is well underway.

We had someone get excited when they passed the development review and received approval but then got jammed up at the building department review and complained that the "design was already approved". This went to my council and I had to explain that it was infeasible that a developer invest in full construction drawings on the chance to bet approved to build a building.

We had something like that take place. Change of occupancy for a building. Buddy didn't pay attention to the "you wanna talk to the building folks before you proceed." Spent $1,500 for a variance and thought he could open up shop.

We're now going to loop building officials into rezonings for a change of use, so the client has a letter that *clearly* explains a land-use approval isn't the end of the line.