I work with architects in various jurisdictions in Southern California - we've noticed a large difference over the past 10 years regarding the plan review process. The plans went from being acceptable to all of a sudden we are being forced (literally forced) to add huge sections of written code verbatim to our drawings to get a permit. We submit and it comes back with 14 pages of commentary. First off, the applicable codes are listed on the cover page - so no matter what, that's the law, contractors are required to follow the applicable codes. Secondly, producing an "abridged" version of the code in our drawings is risky without disclaimer. Because now it looks as though we are saying follow this "abridged" version of the code, not that book. When really, it's black and white, follow the applicable building codes, period (it's only 1,500 pages). Thirdly, I can only imagine how confounding it must be to cost estimation and subcontracting to decipher something like "provide X pursuant to the requirements in X unless because of X per CFC 12030.22 in areas that contain X" that was put in there at the request of an official. Also, I used to live in another state where the inspectors where extremely knowledgeable contractors who actually would help the contractor come to an acceptable solution (ie. they understood the difficulties and knew it was best to be an educator in almost every situation). On the 3 or 4 projects I've managed thus far, the inspectors have been seemingly trained to never say what they would or wouldn't accept in the field, just bizarre. And all of this is as if the city has liability in the process. Maybe I'm wrong, but Architects are licensed by the State, and often end up in construction litigation for code issues (why errors and omission insurance exists), so I'm baffled. And I can tell it's really thrown Architects for a loop in CA, they end up having to submit 3 months early to make sure they start the project on time (which is why the drawings aren't great). On top of longer plan check processes, the planning dept. times are excruciatingly long. Makes the whole AEC industry look terrible to our clients IMO. Few things I've thought:
1. Some new (mystery) policy was enacted at State Level requiring greater enforcement efforts than previously.
2. Experienced Folks in the Building Departments are all leaving/retiring, and there's just less real experience, so the younger folks are relying more heavily on passive tactics.
3. There's been some new event that has made State's and Jurisdictions more at risk of liability for building code issues than they were previously.
Very curious for answers from you CA Building Officials.
1. Some new (mystery) policy was enacted at State Level requiring greater enforcement efforts than previously.
2. Experienced Folks in the Building Departments are all leaving/retiring, and there's just less real experience, so the younger folks are relying more heavily on passive tactics.
3. There's been some new event that has made State's and Jurisdictions more at risk of liability for building code issues than they were previously.
Very curious for answers from you CA Building Officials.