• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Commercial Plans for Metal Building USFS/USDA

Every once in a while our dept. sends plans out to third party reviewers.

One of the primary benefits is that it takes away the influence of local political drama.

Just remind everyone that public safety is your #1 priority,

and often 3rd party reviewers are faster than I can do in-house.
 
Sue read chapter 1 of the IBC if you are indeed the BO you have all the back you need. Remind everyone that the code is there to protect them and the city, not just to make their lives hard.
 
gbhammer said:
Sue read chapter 1 of the IBC if you are indeed the BO you have all the back you need. Remind everyone that the code is there to protect them and the city, not just to make their lives hard.
Click to expand...
gbhammer, California replaced Chapter 1 with it's own
 
I do not believe you will find anything in the CBC that prohibits permitting the project in stages. But by the time that they make the final submittal all of the information required by code must be provided.

Make the point that you are flexible but that you are unwilling to create problems for the city or issue a certificate of occupancy untill the work fully complies with the building code.

You do need to get it on the official record that by obtaining phased permits they are proceeding at risk. Make the point that they should provide as much information up front as they can because there exists the real possibility that the information provided as a part a later submittal could make the plan checker aware of something that could impact work permitted as part of an earlier phased permit. If this happens they will have to make the necessary changes.

In a situation like this I would want to make sure that the initial foundation work will not have to be modified as a result of plumbing and electrical conduit that needs to pass throught the footings. This is often a problem at the main electrical panel or where sinks or toilets are located near the concrete footings.

Your use of an outside plan checker should help to make the point that any comments will be impartial and to protect you from claims that they were affected by your personal feelings. You might informally ask the plan checker to have the comments checked by one of their senior staff.
 
Hello,

I'm Bob, from Florida and I'm the Building Official in the sleepy little town of Melbourne Beach, Florida... This is my first post on the forum..

I've followed this thread and some great points came out...

The one I like best is... "The contractor went over my head to the mayor..."

Imagine that...! Color me surprised...

As a small town Building Official, I find that contractors are more willing to go to the Mayor than fill out the required paperwork for the work the want to do, thinking that they are going to et fast track service... (but, instead... wasting everyone's time, including their own..)

My solution to that is to call the contractor and tell them how much longer their permit will take because... "instead of reviewing their permit application... I had to meet with the Mayor (who knows nothing about administering the building code)... So I couldn't get to your plans right away..." Then, when the job gets inspected... every single code violation gets noticed, documented and corrected... (with a follow up report going to the Mayor at the monthly public commission meeting...) That has been very effective...

Now, as far as your building... You are typically dealing with a "shell building" where the outside of the building is complete and the tenant space is built out as tenants are under contract to occupy the space... (yes even if the tenants may be the feds...)

There are two was to deal with this...

First, (and the easiest) is to get all your engineering for the "shell" (foundation/ footing, metal frame and components of cladding, etc...) and let them build it... when you are satisfied all things are complete... Issue a "Certificate of Completion" but, NO OCCUPANCY Certificate... (that provides future revenues for your department for future tenant buildout permits) and the contractor gets to move forward... You still need to require all your back up information (sub-contractors, U/G utilities to the electrical room, U/G plumbing stub outs, etc...) but you've just freed youself up for the next big thing...

The other option is the route you are taking and as you feel it now... there's a lot more pressure you are putting on yourself...
 
Welcome to the forum Bob.

Thanks for the input. I was not surprised at all that the owner et al went behind my back. It's a small town and everyone knows everyone. That said, I think that the key here is that the owner et al are trying to run the show because they are "good ol' boys" and the rules don't apply to them. Even the mayor admitted he felt that this was the case. So, Tuesday we shall see what happens at the meeting. This is my second go round with these guys on a commercial project and the first one isn't finished yet (5 years and counting).
 
Mark K said:
I do not believe you will find anything in the CBC that prohibits permitting the project in stages. But by the time that they make the final submittal all of the information required by code must be provided.Make the point that you are flexible but that you are unwilling to create problems for the city or issue a certificate of occupancy untill the work fully complies with the building code.

You do need to get it on the official record that by obtaining phased permits they are proceeding at risk. Make the point that they should provide as much information up front as they can because there exists the real possibility that the information provided as a part a later submittal could make the plan checker aware of something that could impact work permitted as part of an earlier phased permit. If this happens they will have to make the necessary changes.

In a situation like this I would want to make sure that the initial foundation work will not have to be modified as a result of plumbing and electrical conduit that needs to pass throught the footings. This is often a problem at the main electrical panel or where sinks or toilets are located near the concrete footings.

Your use of an outside plan checker should help to make the point that any comments will be impartial and to protect you from claims that they were affected by your personal feelings. You might informally ask the plan checker to have the comments checked by one of their senior staff.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the input Mark K. Some very good suggestions. The paperwork involved for this project is going to be massive. It's been a fight starting at the pre-planning stage.

You hit the nail on the head as to the reason for third party plan check. The City used a third party firm when RiteAid was built and that is the reason for me deciding to do it this way. I was informed Friday by the owner that he had been told by his designer that I would be doing the plan check for the foundation/building in house. I told him no, it was being sent out. the owner et al were at the City Council meeting where the third party plan checker introduced herself and her company and the services offered. It was at that meeting that the City hired the firm for the USFS job.

I guess what I am really tired of is all the lies.
 
Fort said:
Every once in a while our dept. sends plans out to third party reviewers.One of the primary benefits is that it takes away the influence of local political drama.

Just remind everyone that public safety is your #1 priority,

and often 3rd party reviewers are faster than I can do in-house.
Click to expand...
Fort -

Welcome to the Board and thanks for your comments. What you have stated is exactly why I opted for third party plan check. I can plan check residential in house, commercial is a whole other story.
 
Mark H

You are correct that California has added a new Chapter 1 (Chapter 1 Division 1) but they have then kept the original IBC Chapter 1 in Division 2. The question is which provisions are applicable.

In sorting our which set of administrative provisions apply you need to consider the primary regulatory agency. For fire and life safety provisions if the State Fire Marshal is considered the adopting agency and the enforcement is delegated to the local jurisdiction. When we look in the adoption matrix it states we find that IBC Section 107.3.3 applies.

For issues related to access compliance DSA/AC is the adopting agency with enforcement delegated to the local jurisdiction. In this situation only the provisions in Division 1 have been adopted thus the provisions in Chapter 1 of the IBC have not been adopted. The applicable provisions in Division 1 are silent on this issue.

When dealing with structural issues the local jurisdiction is considered as having the primary authority. The problem is that the adoption matrix does not have a column for the case where the adopting agency is the local jurisdiction. Looking back to the Health and Safety Code it states that when a state agency does not have jurisdiction that the Building Standards Commission will adopt the provisions of the model building code. Thus it is argued that the provisions of Division 2 apply and thus Section 107.3.3 applies.

The point being that for a single building the applicable provisions of Chapter 1 can vary depending on the adopting agency of which there can be several. Thus it could be suggested that with regards to access compliance issues there is no explicit provision for phased approvals but since the initial focus is on structural issues phased approvals are provided for.

Do not tell me that California does not have interesting building regulations.
 
Mark K said:
Mark H... but they have then kept the original IBC Chapter 1 in Division 2. The question is which provisions are applicable. .
Click to expand...
NOT in my copy of the CA building code vol 2 goes from adoption matrix to the Chapter 16 no IBC Chapter 1
 
Chapter 1 is in volume 1. Volume 1 contains Chapters 1 through 15.

What may cause some confusion is that the 2009 CBC moved the IBC Chapter 1 to an appendix which was located at the end of Volume 2.

In the 2010 CBC Chapter 1 consists of the Chapter 1 applicable for state agencies in Division 1 and the IBC Chapter 1 in Division 2. Some state agencies have apparently adopted some of the provisions in Chapter 1 Division 2. The only way you know what applies is by looking in the adoption matrix at the start of each chapter even though they will tell you that the adoption matrix is not part of the adopted regulations.
 
The link you provided shows a Chapter 1 divided into Divisions 1 and 2. Division 2 is 2009 IBC Chapter 1 with, I believe, a few state amendments. While the numbering scheme in Chapter 1 Division 1 is different from other parts of the CBC the numbering system in Chapter 1 Division 2 is the same as the rest of the chapters. Compare the content of various sections of Chapter 1 Division 2 with corresponding sections in the 2009 IBC.

In the hard copy of the CBC that I purchased ,and have received updates for, there is a matrix adoption table for Chapter 1. The matrix adoption table for Chapter 1 does not appear to be in the online version. The matrix adoption table for Chapter 1 indicates that various state agencies have adopted portions of Division 2.

CBC Appendix K with some residential occupancies in flood regions and has nothing to do with the current discussion.
 
Last thing I will post on this

The California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) did not adopt chapter one of the IBC
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is this a pre-engineered rigid frame metal building? If so, the foundation has to be able to resist the outward thrust before the slab is poured. Typically there are a couple "hairpin" bars at each rigid frame to transfer the thrust into the slab where the slab reinforcement takes care of it.
 
Alias said:
Yep, and from the preview, the metal building roof snow load is listed at 20#, foundation is 30# snow load. Local designer got the 30# right, metal building folks didn't even after sending them the local design requirements.
Click to expand...
That is typical...in cases where time is a factor, I will often accept a signed and sealed letter from the engineer of record for the pre-engineered metal building stating that this design also works for a 30# snow load, and if it doesn't they need to provide new drawings. I feel your pain though, once they (whoever "they" may be) get under your skin, it is difficult to not scratch, even though we know it is better that way. Best of luck, and hang in there, before you know it the project will be over and you can move on...unless a temporary CO is issued (uhhhg, those are the hardest to track for us).
 
=

Fort,

Welcome to The Building Codes Forum! :cool:





Sue,

Please keep us updated [ if you can ]......Sometimes, hashing & re-hashing

all of this can be overwhelming and very tiresome.....Your situation has

more drama than "Dancing With The Idiots".



"I guess what I am really tired of is all the lies."
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that is part of the job description [ i.e. - hearing all ofthe lies / corruption / BS / polla-ticking ]

Hang in there! :D

=
 
mark handler said:
Last thing I will post on thisThe California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) did not adopt chapter one of the IBC
Click to expand...
Mark -

You are absolutely correct. I inadvertently (subconciously?) did adopt this by way of city code when I adopted the entire CBC with appendices C, I, J, & K. Thank you for pointing this out.
 
north star said:
=

Sue,

Please keep us updated [ if you can ]......Sometimes, hashing & re-hashing

all of this can be overwhelming and very tiresome.....Your situation has

more drama than "Dancing With The Idiots".
Click to expand...


You can say that again!





=Unfortunately, that is part of the job description [ i.e. - hearing all of

the lies / corruption / BS / polla-ticking ]

Hang in there! :D

=
Click to expand...
Well, the applicants were a no show for the 10 AM meeting. One did pop into my office at about 9:30 while I was on the phone. He wanted to know when the permit would be ready. Before I could even get out more that "not today" he was gone. Meeting is rescheduled for 10 AM tomorrow.

Called the planner, she has a list of things that need to be corrected before a permit can be issued. Talked to PW and they need more info so that we can collect bonds for the work.

Something tells me this permit isn't getting issued for awhile...............:devil
 
I want to thank everyone for all the suggestions, help, etc. This is the best place to be! :cowboy
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alias

Please provide provide me a basis for the statement that the CBSC did not adopt Chapter 1 of the IBC.

CBC Section 1.1.3.1 States that Title 24 Part 2 (CBC) shall apply to all occupancies and applications not regulated by a state agency. Chapter 1 of the IBC is located in Chapter 1 Division II of the CBC. Thus it would appear that the IBC Chapter 1 language is applicable.

What is the error in my logic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top