Minimum Submittal Requirements

[brudgers]

The copyright on the documents does not prevent the building department from making copies associated with their governmental function. It would not be acceptable to make copies so somebody could copy the building. The building department can markup the plans when making comments. The building official can place official stamps on the documents. If the plan examiner makes changes to the content of the documents without the express agreement from the design professional and then issues the permit based on these changes the plans examiner and the building department are practicing architecture or engineering and would be taking liability for any problems that result. Whoever approved the permit could be reported to the state organization that regulates the practice of engineering or architecture. This is the sort of situation where the building departments immunity would not apply because the action was clearly outside of their governmental function.

Utter nonsense.

 

[Mark K]

Brudgers

Please be more specific. Such comments do not help the dialogue.

 

[Mark K]

incognito

Statements such as "The RDP shall verify that all calculations are correct." are not helpful. When the RDP signs and seals the submitted calculations he has implicitly stated that he believes they are correct. If he made a mistake he might not understand what the mistake was thus would not be likely to find it if he looked again.

Requiring the design professional to make a statement that the documents are correct is just CYA on the part of the plans examiner. I do not believe that the building code gives the building official the right to require the design professional make such a statement nor do I believe it changes the liability of the building department or the individuals working there.

 

[permitguy]

Once the plans are submitted, they become public record and public record laws apply. Copyright would apply outside of their use as public records.

Correct. However, all three states I have experience in have included language in their public records law allowing said records to be "closed" when protected from disclosure by other laws. The copyright act is such a law, according to legal counsel licensed to practice in each of those three states. If subject to copyright protection, plans can be deemed "closed" public records which are not required to be made available for viewing or copying, even upon direct request. Fair use exceptions would still apply.

This is why I believe every building department should have a drafted policy approved by their legal department on the subject of handling public records requests for building plans.

 

[brudgers]

Brudgers Please be more specific. Such comments do not help the dialogue.

Everything quoted.

 

[righter101]

The copyright on the documents does not prevent the building department from making copies associated with their governmental function. It would not be acceptable to make copies so somebody could copy the building.The building department can markup the plans when making comments. The building official can place official stamps on the documents.

If the plan examiner makes changes to the content of the documents without the express agreement from the design professional and then issues the permit based on these changes the plans examiner and the building department are practicing architecture or engineering and would be taking liability for any problems that result. Whoever approved the permit could be reported to the state organization that regulates the practice of engineering or architecture. This is the sort of situation where the building departments immunity would not apply because the action was clearly outside of their governmental function.

I had a plans examiner make changes to the special inspection requirements without notifying me to be helpful. At the end of the job the inspections performed did not match those changed. We had to spend considerable time sorting this out. This was not helpful.

If you have comments make them and expect the design professional to resubmit a clean copy.

So if I, as a plans examiner, have a set of plans from an Architect for a SFR that lists 8.25" rise on the stairs, I cross this out and write 7.75" max per IRC 311, I am somehow guilty of practicing architecture without a license? I could be reported to the State for practicing architecture without a license??

I have an 8 week turnaround time currently, so rather than approve these plans, I should contact the Architect and further delay approval, for something such as this???

 

[Mark K]

righter101

You can mark that as a plan check comment but not if you then approve the documents with that comment on it.

The change to the rise could result in there being changes to the number of stairs which could cause other problems. As noted previously there are some times where the design professional knows things that the plans examiner does not.

If you note the change on the drawings and the design professional does not see it he will not make changes to the CAD files.

Sometimes attempts to be helpful are not.

In Northern California it is common to have to respond to plan check comments. This is not because the design professionals are doing a bad job but rather because the building departments attempt to do a thorough job. If you want to be helpful give the Architect a heads up call and have an expidited process for resolving responses to plan check comments.

Rather than thinking about delaying approval think about prossessing the application as quick as possible. On the other hand do not make a bunch of standard comments that indicate that you had not looked closely at the drawings.

 

[brudgers]

I have an 8 week turnaround time currently, so rather than approve these plans, I should contact the Architect and further delay approval, for something such as this???

There is no excuse for an 8 week backlog.

 

[brudgers]

You can mark that as a plan check comment but not if you then approve the documents with that comment on it.

Based upon what?

 

[Mark K]

Brudgers

If you modify the permit application without the design professionals approval and approve the permit you have two problems. First you have stepped over the line and are practicing architecture or engineering. Secondly I believe that there are legal difficulties with modifying the permit application.

It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application and to comply with the code. The building department can accept the application, respond with comments, or reject the application. The building department cannot modify the application. At times there may be a fine line between being helpful and stepping over the line into the dark side.

 

[righter101]

There is no excuse for an 8 week backlog.

Part of that is land use. We have our entire jurisdiction surrounded by water with shore line regs, archeology buffers, wetlands, geo hazard areas. This is part of the delay.

Second, we have a large volume of submissions and only 1 plans examiner. me.

We have 2 inspectors that serve 172 islands. When one of them goes on vacation, I have to inspect and we don't get much done in the way of plan review.

Its not an excuse, its just how it is.

To that end, we do have an over the counter process for mechanical and stand alone plumbing permits. Also, for garages, ag buildings, interior remodels, we have a "fast track" process and I have about a 4 week delay on those.

There are currently over 50 projects in for review.

I am totally open for suggestions on how to reduce the turnaround time.

I even put in time on nights and weekends.

When I took the Plans Examiner Job, turnaround was 20 weeks, and I have proudly reduced it to 8 or less.

 

[righter101]

righter101 If you want to be helpful give the Architect a heads up call and have an expidited process for resolving responses to plan check comments.

Rather than thinking about delaying approval think about prossessing the application as quick as possible. On the other hand do not make a bunch of standard comments that indicate that you had not looked closely at the drawings.

When i send a correction letter, I process responses to that with in a few days of those coming back in.

I dont make a bunch of standard comments that indicate I haven't looked closely at drawings.

 

[Mark K]

You can reduce the impact if you give the applicant the option of having the plan check performed by a third party plan checker selected by the building department. The applicant pays any additional costs. This is done by a lot of building departments.

 

[brudgers]

Brudgers If you modify the permit application without the design professionals approval and approve the permit you have two problems. First you have stepped over the line and are practicing architecture or engineering. Secondly I believe that there are legal difficulties with modifying the permit application. It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application and to comply with the code. The building department can accept the application, respond with comments, or reject the application. The building department cannot modify the application. At times there may be a fine line between being helpful and stepping over the line into the dark side.

I understood your opinion the first time. It still isn't supported by any relevant facts, rationales or examples.

 

[brudgers]

Part of that is land use. We have our entire jurisdiction surrounded by water with shore line regs, archeology buffers, wetlands, geo hazard areas. This is part of the delay. Second, we have a large volume of submissions and only 1 plans examiner. me. We have 2 inspectors that serve 172 islands. When one of them goes on vacation, I have to inspect and we don't get much done in the way of plan review. Its not an excuse, its just how it is. To that end, we do have an over the counter process for mechanical and stand alone plumbing permits. Also, for garages, ag buildings, interior remodels, we have a "fast track" process and I have about a 4 week delay on those. There are currently over 50 projects in for review. I am totally open for suggestions on how to reduce the turnaround time. I even put in time on nights and weekends. When I took the Plans Examiner Job, turnaround was 20 weeks, and I have proudly reduced it to 8 or less.

Land use is another beast. But once that beast is slain, it takes x amount of time to review a plan today or two weeks from today (as your ability to more than halve the review time shows).

 

[incognito]

incognitoStatements such as "The RDP shall verify that all calculations are correct." are not helpful. When the RDP signs and seals the submitted calculations he has implicitly stated that he believes they are correct. If he made a mistake he might not understand what the mistake was thus would not be likely to find it if he looked again.

Requiring the design professional to make a statement that the documents are correct is just CYA on the part of the plans examiner. I do not believe that the building code gives the building official the right to require the design professional make such a statement nor do I believe it changes the liability of the building department or the individuals working there.

I see no mention in the code in regards to comments that I can or can not make as to what I want the RDP to provide. As far as liability I have none, nada, zero unless I knowingly approve something which is not code compliant. Even then I can reasonably argue that as the AHJ that I consider the design to be an acceptable technique. After all, it has been designed by a RDP. I will ALWAYS leave a paper trail that goes directly to the RDP.

 

[Mark K]

Incognito

I agree that you have no liability as long as you focus on enforcing the adopted regulations.

The building official should be focused on whether the project complies with the adopted regulations and has no authority to decide who is liable. By trying to direct responsibility to the RDP you are trying to make him liable. That is the job of the courts and the state bodies that licenses architects and engineers.

There is nothing in the building code or state laws, in the states that I am aware of, that empowers the building official with the right to determine responsibility. If the building official believes that the RDP is acting inappropriately or is incompetent he can file a complaint with the state board regulating the practice of architecture or engineering.

If you have no liability then why do you need to play the games of trying to point the finger at the RDP?

 

[Mark K]

brudgers

I recently filled out an application for a building permit that required that I make statements under the penalty of perjury. What is important here is that I am making a decleration of what I believe to be true not what somebody else believes to be true.

If I understand your position you are saying that the building official can modify the appliction, which includes the construction documents, after I signed it thus making me responsible for the truthfullness of of what the building official believes to be true. Earlier in this thread codegeek pointed to a situation where the plans examiner was ultimately found to be wrong. If I am to be held responsible I want to be held responsible for my statements not those of the plans examiner.

If you really believe that it is OK for the plans examiner to unilaterally make changes then we really have to really worry about big brother and our constitutional rights.

 

[peach]

As a former plan reviewer and inspector (and now PM for a 3rd party inspection team), I'd much rather have clear, correct plans before permit rather than leaving it "for the inspector to catch in the field". It always makes the inspector the bad guy (who can cause the building owner to spend ALOT of money).

If you have a policy of the plan reviewer redlining plans, keep it to simple things (add a smoke detector or receptacle).. nothing structural.. AND the plan reviewer needs to initial the change.

I recently got called to the principle's office because the builder didn't build to plans. We pulled the plans from the plan room and there were extensive (structural and historic items) drawn in with blue ink... no plan review stamp or initial. All the builder needed was a blue pen and he could have made extensive changed on the "approved plans".

The builder did, by the way, build to the approved plans.. what he had neglected to include on the plans was the existing condition (facade and height) of the structure.

 

[TJacobs]

I prefer to redline the plans and generate a correction letter sent to the RDP. When the RDP calls, I suggest a meeting so he/she can make the corrections on the plans and we're off to the races. However, if the corrections require any kind of redraw, then a redraw it is. In-person meetings are helpful to eliminate misunderstandings, by both sides.

 

[mark handler]

[ianal] Once the plans are submitted, they become public record and public record laws apply. Copyright would apply outside of their use as public records.

Copyright in architectural works is established under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(8).[8] Moreover, protection of pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works is established under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(5).[9] Thus, architects can receive two levels of protection for their works: one for the design of a building as embodied in buildings, architectural plans, or drawings under § 102(a)(8) and one for diagrams, models, and technical drawings themselves under § 102(a)(5).

Copyright protection can extend to general drawings and blueprints, preliminary plans, sections, elevations, floor plans, construction plans, rough models, models of internal support, models of external appearance, photomontages of the building against backdrops, computer-generated images of a design, and constructed buildings.[17] The designs embodied in any of these types of works need not be capable of construction to be protected.[18]

In order to obtain protection as an "architectural work" under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(8), as opposed to a "pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work" under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(5), the work must include a design of a building.[19] “Buildings” are defined in the Copyright Office as “humanly habitable structures that are intended to be both permanent and stationary, such as houses and office buildings, and other permanent and stationary structures designed for human occupancy, including but not limited to churches, museums, gazebos, and garden pavilions.”[20] Specifically prohibited from protection are “structures other than buildings, such as bridges, cloverleafs, dams, walkways, tents, recreational vehicles, mobile homes, and boats.”[20]

www.copyright.gov/circs/circ41.pdf

 

[righter101]

Land use is another beast. But once that beast is slain, it takes x amount of time to review a plan today or two weeks from today (as your ability to more than halve the review time shows).

Land use is the majority of that delay. of the 8 weeks, probably 5 to LU, 3 to me. I have implemented a few other things, such as taking a cursory look at intake and sending a letter there, for large obivious items (no foundation plan, not prescriptive, needs engineering, etc...) and that has helped as well.

To reply to Mark K. we have provided, in our fee ordinance, the pay extra for 3rd party plan check.

One other item that contributes to the longer turnaround time (or appearance of) is we don't require a septic certificate or H20 availabilty at the time of submission. Often, we get done with everything and are waiting on those, which is beyond our control. Most other jurisdictions will not even accept an application without H20 and sewer/septic. That could probably reduce our times further on a fair number of projects, but people like being able to submit, then work on those other items.

That said, if I keep the overall time under 8 weeks (including land use) less in the winter, the pitchforks disappear.

 

[righter101]

I see no mention in the code in regards to comments that I can or can not make as to what I want the RDP to provide. As far as liability I have none, nada, zero unless I knowingly approve something which is not code compliant. Even then I can reasonably argue that as the AHJ that I consider the design to be an acceptable technique. After all, it has been designed by a RDP. I will ALWAYS leave a paper trail that goes directly to the RDP.

As far as what you can request they provide or not, I usually fall back on IRC 106.1.1

R106.1.1 Information on construction documents. Construction

documents shall be drawn upon suitable material.

Electronic media documents are permitted to be submitted

when approved by the building official. Construction documents

shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location,

nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail

that it will conform to the provisions of this code and relevant

laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, as determined

by the building official.

I am not over picky, and I do proudly use Milton's rule, but sometimes, what I get is bad.

My general speech on really bad plans is this:

The plans should be clear enough that a compentent contractor not familiar with the project should be able to order materials from the plans and built it, with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Should we have a "submission of the month" category on the forum?? With all identifying information redacted?? I trust that most of the RDP's that contribute to this fourm care enough about work product to produce something good. The fact they are engaged in debate and up to speed on code and legal issues tells me that you guys care to a large degree. I get things that haven't even had an internal second look from RDP firms. They use me as the quality control. Which, I don't mind, but if I was spending these sums of money on professional architecture, I would expect a good work product.

Hope everyone has a good weekend.

 

[Mark K]

Engineers and architects should do a better job of checking the documents before submission.

Some of the reasons that poorly checked documents get submitted even from decent firms:

--The owner has an unrealistic date that he must start construction so the consultant makes the submission to keep the Owner happy.

--The turn around time for the paln check is long. The designers figure that while the plan check is taking place they can complete and coordinate the documents.

--The plan check comments from the jurisdiction are perceived to be arbitrarly and inconsistent. There is one state agency in California that will bleed red on the drawings no matter how good they are. Contract plan checkers have reported that they get pressured to make more comments even if they feel the engineer did a good job. This causes some design professionals to say why make an attempt to get it right just wait for the comments and respond then since they will get the same amount of comments no matter how good a job they do.

These are not presented as excuses but rather to understand the dynamic.