Interesting question

[Yankee Chronicler]

I have a permit application under review that involves interior alterations on the first and third floors of a three-story building -- medical offices. The construction documents are declaring the first floor work as Level 3 alterations, and the third floor work as Level 2 alterations.

My immediate reaction is that it's all one project, so once any part of it rises to Level 3, the whole thing is Level 3. The architects are apparently taking the approach that, since there are two separate work areas, they can treat each one independently. I don't think I agree. The 2021 IEBC Commentary doesn't help.

I'd appreciate your thoughts.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

And I think I found my answer, in the IEBC definition of "Work Area."

WORK AREA. That portion or portions of a building consisting
of all reconfigured spaces as indicated on the construction
documents. Work area excludes other portions of the building
where incidental work entailed by the intended work must be
performed and portions of the building where work not initially
intended by the owner is specifically required by this code.

Commentary

This section specifically defines the area of all reconfigured
spaces where work is expected to occur within
the scope of a project. These areas are to be shown
clearly on the construction documents. “Incidental”
work areas are not required to be shown as work
areas. Note that care needs to be taken in designating
the work area. For instance, when a voluntary seismic
upgrade (Level 2 alteration) is being made throughout
a building, it would be reasonable to simply designate
only the actual area of seismic upgrade to avoid placing
the alteration in a Level 3 inappropriately. Since
the work is voluntary, it seems inappropriate for such
an upgrade to trigger Level 3 alteration requirements,
such as those for automatic sprinkler systems. In this
example, only the actual floor area occupied by the
columns, beams or walls that are being modified by
the seismic upgrade would be included in the “work
area.” It would be inappropriate to include the floor
area of an entire room simply because a wall or other
structural element within that room is being altered.
The key is that the definition states that the work area
consists of “reconfigured spaces.” Installing sprinklers
or upgrading a structural element typically does not
reconfigure a space.

This supports my view that all work areas in the scope of a single project are considered together.

 

[Sifu]

I think I would agree. By their logic, what prevents them from saying that the east side of floor #1 is a different level than the west side? Or the room on the left is different from the room on the right...and on and on.

 

[steveray]

It's level 3 where the level 2 work is 50% of the BUILDING....As they are doing two out of three stories it seems like it could be level 3 (66%)...But Shirley a shrewd consultant could find a way around that....

604.1​

Level 3 alterations apply where the work area exceeds 50 percent of the building area.

 

[ICE]

If the work being done on separate floors could qualify as Level 2 and Level 3 on their own merit, it seems punitive to lump them together. Perhaps the project should be under two permits.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The plot thickens. The Assessor has informed me that the first floor space has never been finished or occupied. So it's more than an alteration, it's a first construction, first occupancy.

I think that falls under the IBC rather than under Chapter 10 of the IEBC, but I don't see a clear code path to get me there.

 

[steveray]

If the work being done on separate floors could qualify as Level 2 and Level 3 on their own merit, it seems punitive to lump them together. Perhaps the project should be under two permits.

It's level 3 where the level 2 work is 50% of the BUILDING.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

It's level 3 where the level 2 work is 50% of the BUILDING....As they are doing two out of three stories it seems like it could be level 3 (66%)...But Shirley a shrewd consultant could find a way around that....

604.1​

Level 3 alterations apply where the work area exceeds 50 percent of the building area.

In this case the work on the first floor is about 90% (there's an elevator lobby that's not in the scope of work), and the scope of work on the tird floor is tiny. So the total affected area is less than 50% of the total building area, yet virtually the entire first floor is being built out.

However, it turns out the first floor is currently unfinished and unoccupied -- and has never been occupied. This will be the first build-out for the first floor tenant space. I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it an "alteration." Change of occupancy? But Chapter 10 of the IEBC doesn't really say that much. I'd love to call it an addition and just invoke the IBC, but it doesn't really fit the definition of "addition," either.

 

[steveray]

In this case the work on the first floor is about 90% (there's an elevator lobby that's not in the scope of work), and the scope of work on the tird floor is tiny. So the total affected area is less than 50% of the total building area, yet virtually the entire first floor is being built out.

However, it turns out the first floor is currently unfinished and unoccupied -- and has never been occupied. This will be the first build-out for the first floor tenant space. I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it an "alteration." Change of occupancy? But Chapter 10 of the IEBC doesn't really say that much. I'd love to call it an addition and just invoke the IBC, but it doesn't really fit the definition of "addition," either.

Yeah...the shell stuff gets weird, but it is IBC, it's just muddy to get there...sorta...

EXISTING BUILDING. A building or structure, or portion thereof, erected in whole or in part, for which a legal building permit and a certificate of occupancy has been issued. Buildings or structures or portions thereof erected prior to October 1, 1970 shall be deemed existing buildings regardless of the existence of a legal permit or a certificate of occupancy.

It's not an existing building (or portion thereof) if it never got a CO....After 1970 anyway...

 

[Mr. Inspector]

It's level 3 where the level 2 work is 50% of the BUILDING....As they are doing two out of three stories it seems like it could be level 3 (66%)...But Shirley a shrewd consultant could find a way around that....

604.1​

Level 3 alterations apply where the work area exceeds 50 percent of the building area.

I agree. But what if they applied with 2 separate applications, two different times with two separate applicants and two different contractors, one for the 1st story and one for the 3rd story and it totaled over 50%, and the work will be done at the same time?

 

[steveray]

I agree. But what if they applied with 2 separate applications, two different times with two separate applicants and two different contractors, one for the 1st story and one for the 3rd story and it totaled over 50%?

Back to back...I couldn't say boo....Work going on at the same time I would call BS...Or L3 anyway....

 

[TheCommish]

Check on the scoping language of IEBC, as i recall unfinished space is outside of the scope of the document. Potentially treat the first floor as a ne fit out of space, and the 3rd floor work as classified by the IEBC, under separate permits

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Back to back...I couldn't say boo....Work going on at the same time I would call BS...Or L3 anyway....

If it were two different tenants and two different architects and two different contractors, I'd consider that. At this point, they've come in with one architect and one applicant, with one set of plans showing the work on both floors. It's one project. As it happens, it's not enough work on the third floor to crack the 50% total area ceiling, but the fact the ground floor was never occupied puts it into another code book entirely.

 

[Sifu]

I had one a few weeks ago with 5 different scopes of work, to be done at different times, but for the same occupant. What was individual medical suites was now being taken over by one owner/occupant, but still with individual treatment areas. All common spaces were for all occupants. They lumped it under one permit, but since they wanted to phase it and occupy it at different times they needed to reapply with 5 different permits. This was the call of the AHJ. So they submitted the exact same plans for each permit instead of splitting out the work into 5 different sets of plans. I told them I was OK with it from a review standpoint as long as the 5 different scopes were well defined so there was little doubt in my mind, and more importantly the contractors and inspectors minds about what they were permitted to do under each permit. The reality is that much of the MEP work will take place across all permits since they share systems. Probably be somewhat messy but I think the contractors and inspectors can manage it in the field if they employ some elasticity and critical thinking. My purview is to try to ensure code compliance, which didn't have a lot to do with HOW it is permitted. In many ways, one set of plans made that task easier than if there were 5 different sets of plans. Some of the scopes were different levels of work, but as a whole they comprised > 50% so they had to submit as a level 3. With separate permits they maybe could have argued that some of them did not rise to a level 3, but they didn't, mostly because the intent was as a whole building to begin with, and because it wouldn't have made much difference to their program intent.....or they just didn't think of it.

 

[steveray]

[A]102.6.1​

A building or portion of a building that has not been previously occupied or used for its intended purpose in accordance with the laws in existence at the time of its completion shall be permitted to comply with the provisions of the laws in existence at the time of its original permit unless such permithas expired. Subsequent permits shall comply with the International Building Code or International Residential Code, as applicable, for new construction.

 

[jar546]

First fit-out IBC.
Part of the same project for the same offices, then they go together.

If they don't like it, they can go to the appeals board and plead their case.

Take a stand.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

It just keeps getting better.

I discovered that the building was constructed in 2017-2018. There was a TEMPORARY certificate of occupancy issued -- which expired in November of 2018. No part of the building has ever received a final inspection or a certificate of occupancy. This is the kind of record keeping that the current administration wants us to ignore or sweep under the carpet. Meanwhile, if there were to be a fire or something resulting in injuries or deaths -- the owners would be in deep kimchee because they are technically occupying the building illegally.

And I'll be the bad guy for bringing this up.

 

[Sifu]

It just keeps getting better.

I discovered that the building was constructed in 2017-2018. There was a TEMPORARY certificate of occupancy issued -- which expired in November of 2018. No part of the building has ever received a final inspection or a certificate of occupancy. This is the kind of record keeping that the current administration wants us to ignore or sweep under the carpet. Meanwhile, if there were to be a fire or something resulting in injuries or deaths -- the owners would be in deep kimchee because they are technically occupying the building illegally.

And I'll be the bad guy for bringing this up.

That isn't uncommon in my areas. TCO's have become so ubiquitous they have become a right to the applicants. I have been invited to several meetings where applicants are requesting an anticipatory TCO BEFORE the plans have been approved and permits issued. I decline the meetings, if the AHJ wants to do that it is on them, not me.

I know of a large wholesale retailer in the area that operated on a TCO for years, with full knowledge of the AHJ. Might still be.

Back in the day TCO's were a rare occurrence, granted for rare circumstances, placed with measurable performance metrics and time restrictions. Now, they are just a part of the normal process. Many never get resolved until something like what you describe happens. I can't count the number of times TCO's are extended or forgotten about. This is the fault of the administrations of which you speak IMHO. The builders/owners/contractors are just taking what they are given.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

We almost never give a TCO except when they filed an appeal for accessibility.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

A friend and former colleague who left the department where we worked to become the chief building official of a small town, and then went on to become the chief building official in a much larger town, often said, "There is nothing more permanent than a temporary certificate of occupancy." He hated them. I hate them.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Suggest they use IEBC Chapter 5 for both floors