No, it's not in a special fire district, wildland area, or anything else. It's in suburban San Fernando Valley. My client paid extra for an expedited plan check.
What we got back from the city was a bunch of standard corrections, including for items that were clearly shown on the plans.
Example: "Provide 2 copies of the retaining wall calculations", when we had clearly provided them... the plan checker reutrned the check set to me with the two sets of calcs rubber-banded around the rolled-up plans.
I'm really frustrated because it feels like all we accomplished with the expedite was to waste our time by getting only a cursory review. Now I have to go into backcheck and point out to the checker all the things his missed on his first check. If it takes a face-to-face meeting to get a real plan check, why can't I do that in the first place, and not waste time with a faux expedited check?
FWIW, I have submitted similar plans previously to the city in a non-expedite process for other projects, and they've found the items they were looking for: accessibility notes, etc. So I don't think this recent case of standard note dumping has to do with the quality or readability of our own plans.
It's as if the initial phase of plan check has become totally passive: "I don't want to read anything on your plans, but here's a list of typical reasons why I might not approve other projects like this. Come back again and make presentation to me, proving point-by-point that these problems don't exist on your project; that way I still won't need to read your plans in order to approve them."
