Reasons Why Building Permit Application Packages are Rejected by Permit Technicians

[Mark K]

The advent of online permitting was a roadblock of epic proportions. It was always a dream of the County administrators to force the populace to go paperless; Covid-19 provided the opportunity. Prior to the lock-down people filled out a permit application at a public counter with the help of, (well let's not get carried away with this), a permit tech. If they stumbled with a line on a form they could point and ask a question, or seven. Now they are staring at a computer screen wishing they could ask half a question.

The mistakes that I witnessed were bought and paid for. I found them on a permit as I went to perform an inspection. These are actual examples; Residential all of it----32 backwater valves----transformers----200 120v receptacles----boilers----and on it goes.

Somehow a permit tech issued the permit with $1216.00 worth of backwater valves on a project that didn't require even one. I would bring these errors to the attention of the office manager. I was told to stop looking for the mistakes as that would cause extra work in issuing refunds. While you might think that the lack of caring was motivated by a loss of revenue... you would be wrong. Money means nothing to them...it's the light that would shine on the ineptitude that bothers.

When I say that money is meaningless it works both ways. They don't care how much we waste and they don't care how much the customer spends.

I had a flat residential project in a built out 1950 subdivision. I showed up for an under-slab plumbing inspection and was handed a soils report from an engineer. I was surprised. Later on I asked our new grading&drainage engineer why he required a soils report. He said that having been recently assigned to this district office he wanted to know what soil type we had in this area. Had he bothered to ask I could have told him that we have brown, black and tan---sometimes all three on the same lot.

The engineer was following good practice in requesting a soils/geotechnical report. There is more to a geotechnical report than the type of soil.

In general plan checkers are not qualified geotechnical engineers. Will the jurisdiction accept the liability for any problems associated with the plan checker practicing geotechnical engineering. I think not.

 

[ICE]

The engineer was following good practice in requesting a soils/geotechnical report.

The engineer's sole motive was to explore what type of soil was present on a flat lot in a subdivision that was built out fifty years prior. The soils report served no purpose other than a whimsical desire of the County engineer. A thousand similar projects were completed before and since the asinine request for a soils report.

Presumed expansive soil...footing 24" into undisturbed soil... There ya go, can I sell that as a soils report?

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Whimsical desire, or code requirement? California Building Code:

Section 107 Construction Documents

[A] 107.1 General. Submittal documents consisting of construction documents, statement of special inspections, geotechnical report and other data shall be submitted in two or more sets, or in a digital format where allowed by the building official, with each permit application. The construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional where required by the statutes of the jurisdiction in which the project is to be constructed. Where special conditions exist, the building official is authorized to require additional construction documents to be prepared by a registered design professional.

 

[ICE]

Whimsical desire, or code requirement? California Building Code:

Section 107 Construction Documents

[A] 107.1 General. Submittal documents consisting of construction documents, statement of special inspections, geotechnical report and other data shall be submitted in two or more sets, or in a digital format where allowed by the building official, with each permit application. The construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional where required by the statutes of the jurisdiction in which the project is to be constructed. Where special conditions exist, the building official is authorized to require additional construction documents to be prepared by a registered design professional.

When you make arbitrary demands simply because you can, you diminish your worth.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Section 107 Construction Documents

[A] 107.1 General. Submittal documents consisting of construction documents, statement of special inspections, geotechnical report and other data shall be submitted in two or more sets, or in a digital format where allowed by the building official, with each permit application. The construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional where required by the statutes of the jurisdiction in which the project is to be constructed. Where special conditions exist, the building official is authorized to require additional construction documents to be prepared by a registered design professional.

When you make arbitrary demands simply because you can, you diminish your worth.

It's not an "arbitrary demand" when it's a requirement that is clearly and explicitly written in the code. The word "shall" in code (and statute) language is mandatory. It's the code that makes the demand, not the person charged with enforcing the code. Legally, the applicant is required [by the code] to submit a geotechnical report, whether or not the permit tech, plan reviewer, or inspector asks for it.

If the code requires it, then by law I am required to look for it when I review the documents, and I am required to ask for it if it hasn't been submitted.

I don't understand why this is difficult to comprehend.

 

[ICE]

I don't understand why this is difficult to comprehend.

Well for starters, I don’t have that code section. Then there is what I have said already. There are a few local jurisdictions that require a soils report for everything from a monument sign to a warehouse. Picture building a patio cover with a soils report that cost more than the patio cover. It’s just another good reason to build without a permits. Now the rest of us seem to get positive results without all of the extra hoopla.

So you come up with the letter of the code from the inside of a box… Admit that there is more to administering building code than reciting code. Given the facts as I have laid them out; please explain why you can’t see my position as having merit.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

So you come up with the letter of the code from the inside of a box… Admit that there is more to administering building code than reciting code. Given the facts as I have laid them out; please explain why you can’t see my position as having merit.

If the code you operate under doesn't include that requirement, then you shouldn't ask for a geotechnical report, absent special circumstances. The section of code I cited is from the current California Building Code (as presented by UpCodes). That language is from the 2021 ICC International Building Code. My state retained the requirement for a geotechnical report when we adopted the 2021 IBC. If I don't require it, I would be committing malfeasance and potentially opening up the municipality I work for to a lawsuit.

 

[ICE]

My code does indeed have a 107.1 code section in the CBC… In as much as my example is residential I have found R107.1 as well.

“FEES 107.1 Building Permit Fees.
In addition to a permit issuance fee of $31.90, a fee for each building permit shall be paid to the Building Official as set forth in Table 1-A.”

R107.1 General.
The building official is authorized to issue a permit for temporary structures and temporary uses. Such permits shall be limited as to time of service, but shall not be permitted for more than 180 days. The building official is authorized to grant extensions for demonstrated cause.

I am willing to concede that there are seeming absolutes built into your code. Having been accused of setting a high bar, I would not find fault with a lack of imagination.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

What jurisdiction do you work in? According to UpCodes, the Section 107 of the California Building Code is Construction Documents. Fees is Section 109.

https://up.codes/viewer/california/ca-building-code-2022/chapter/1/scope-and-administration#107

 

[wwhitney]

It's not an "arbitrary demand" when it's a requirement that is clearly and explicitly written in the code.

The text you cite is not a requirement to provide a geotechnical report. It's a requirement as to the manner of submission if a geotechnical report is submitted.

Section 1803.6 of the IBC requires submission of a geotechnical report if a geotechnical investigation is required. Earlier parts of Section 1803 discuss when a geotechnical investigation is required. [I'm looking at the California Building Code and assuming they have not relevantly amended the IBC.]

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

This is quoted directly from the UpCodes rendition of the California Building Code. I have to disagree with you. It very much IS a requirement to submit a geotechnical report.

107.1 General. Submittal documents consisting of construction documents, statement of special inspections, geotechnical report and other data shall be submitted in two or more sets,

In legal (and code, as well as specification) language, the use of "shall" is mandatory. If the requirements for construction documents mandate that the applicant "shall" submit a geotechnical report, I have to ask for a geotechnical report or I'm not doing my job.

shall

www.law.cornell.edu

shall​

Shall is an imperative command, usually indicating that certain actions are mandatory, and not permissive. This contrasts with the word “may,” which is generally used to indicate a permissive provision, ordinarily implying some degree of discretion.
Some common uses of the term “shall” in a legal sense include:

• In the context of statutes, cases such as this one from California, explain that “settled principles of statutory construction direct that courts ordinarily construe the word ‘may’ as permissive and the word ‘shall’ as mandatory, particularly when a single statute uses both terms.”
• Similarly, this case from Illinois, explains that “the word ‘shall’ in a statute generally indicates a mandatory obligation, although courts sometimes interpret it as directory or permissive.”
• This case from Illinois, goes on to explain that “when used in a statute, the term ‘shall’ does not have a fixed or inflexible meaning and may be given a permissive or directory interpretation depending on the legislative intent. If a statutory provision using the term ‘shall’ merely directs a manner of conduct to guide officials or is designed to secure order, system, and dispatch in proceedings, it is generally “directory.”

Compare: may

"Shall" is also different from "should." "Should" is not mandatory; it suggests more that something would be preferable or beneficial, but is not required.

The 2021 IBC Commentary has this to say about section 107.1:

This section establishes the requirement to provide the
building official with construction drawings, specifications
and other documents that describe the structure
or system for which a permit is sought (see Section
202 for a complete definition). It describes the information
that must be included in the documents, who must
prepare them and procedures for approving them.

 

[wwhitney]

This is quoted directly from the UpCodes rendition of the California Building Code. I have to disagree with you. It very much IS a requirement to submit a geotechnical report.

But the requirement does not say that the construction drawings submitted "shall consist" of the enumerated documents. The enumeration is simply of documents that may be necessary to submit, which is why it ends with the catchall "other data;" it's not trying to define exactly what needs submitting. The point of section 107.1 is how you submit the necessary documents, not what you submit. Section 107.2 goes on to discuss some documents and information that must be submitted; it does not discuss geotechnical reports.

Chapter 18 of the IBC is on "Soils and Foundations". Section 1803 is on "Geotechnical Investigations." 1803.6 is titled "Reporting" and says "Where geotechnical investigations are required, a written report of the investigations shall be submitted to the building official by the permit applicant at the time of permit application."

That language clearly encompasses the possibility that sometimes geotechnical investigations are not required. The earlier sections of 1803 discuss when they are and are not required, in particular 1803.2 and its exception.

https://up.codes/viewer/california/ca-building-code-2022/chapter/18/soils-and-foundations#1803.6

Cheers, Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

The 2021 IBC Commentary has this to say about section 107.1:

Are you sure that commentary is about 107.1 and not about 107.2 or section 107 in general? Because section 107.2 is the section that talks about "the information that must be included in the documents". [I understand the Commentary is "Premium Content" and thus not freely available for me to read.]

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Are you sure that commentary is about 107.1 and not about 107.2 or section 107 in general? Because section 107.2 is the section that talks about "the information that must be included in the documents". [I understand the Commentary is "Premium Content" and thus not freely available for me to read.]

Cheers, Wayne

To borrow a phrase from Matthew Quigley, "Quite sure."

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

But the requirement does not say that the construction drawings submitted "shall consist" of the enumerated documents. The enumeration is simply of documents that may be necessary to submit, which is why it ends with the catchall "other data;" it's not trying to define exactly what needs submitting.

[A] 107.1 General. Submittal documents consisting of construction documents, statement of special inspections, geotechnical report and other data shall be submitted ...

No, I agree it doesn't say that the construction documents shall consist of the enumerated documents. I never said that. It says that the permit application "shall" consist of the construction documents plus the other enumerated items. The geotechnical report is not part of the construction documents, it is a separate enumerated document that is required to be submitted, just like the statement of special inspections.

 

[wwhitney]

It says that the permit application "shall" consist of the construction documents plus the other enumerated items.

No, it doesn't. It says that "submittal documents . . . shall be submitted . . ." It mentions in passing that submittal documents consist of construction documents, etc, but it doesn't say they "shall" consist of those. It's just giving some examples in passing.

1803.6 directly addresses when you need to submit geotechnical reports. 107.1 mentions it in passing. 1803.6 is more on point and controls.

This is a silly argument, as 1803.2 requires a geotechnical investigation unless the building official waives the requirement. My point is only that if the building official hasn't waived the requirement, and a submittal comes in without a geotechnical report, the best reference for the correction is to 1803.6/1803.2.

107.1 would be the correct reference if the submittal documents received consist of an insufficient number of sets, or if parts of them are not prepared by a registered design professional when they are required to be. If a specific item is missing, the relevant code section requiring that item to be submitted is the best reference. Several of those are in 107.2.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

To borrow a phrase from Matthew Quigley, "Quite sure."

Well, unless you can post more of the Commentary to provide context, I can't really further comment on this. If the text you posted is Commentary under a heading of 107.1, and the Commentary does not have a preceding entry for Section 107 as a whole, then the Commentary has just conflated comments on Article 107 as a whole with comments on 107.1.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

the Commentary has just conflated comments on Article 107 as a whole with comments on 107.1.

This is precisely what the Commentary you posted reads like. Note that it starts off with "This section . . . " 107 is a section, 107.1 is a subsection.

So that commentary is on Section 107 as a whole, not on subsection 107.1 The comment that that "this section describes the information that must be included in the documents," is referring to Section 107 as a whole (most likely subsection 107.2), not subsection 107.1.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The commentary I quoted follows subsection 107.1, it does not fall under section 107. It therefor applies to subsection 107.1.

 

[wwhitney]

The commentary I quoted follows subsection 107.1, it does not fall under section 107. It therefor applies to subsection 107.1.

Nope, it refers to "this section" not "this subsection". All of section 107, not just subsection 107.1.

Are there even any examples of commentary that is printed between the section title and the first subsection? If not, obviously any section wide commentary is printed under the first subsection.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Look at the IBC commentaries for 703.2, 703.2.1.1, 703.2.1.5, 802.3, 802.5, 803.3, and many others throughout the Commentary. It's clear that the IBC Commentaries do not refer to sub-sections and sub-sub-sections any differently than they refer to the major sections. In the IBC Commentary, they are all referred to as "section."

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Are there even any examples of commentary that is printed between the section title and the first subsection? If not, obviously any section wide commentary is printed under the first subsection.

How about, for example, Chapter 3, where there is extensive commentary between the chapter title and the first major section?

 

[wwhitney]

How about, for example, Chapter 3, where there is extensive commentary between the chapter title and the first major section?

Maybe, I can't confirm or dispute as the Commentary is not freely available. So maybe the Commentary is not in my favor on this disagreement.

But post #40 is unrebutted. Section 1803 directly addresses when to submit geotechnical reports (1803.6 and 1803.2), and it explicitly says they are sometimes not required. 107.1 mentions them in passing. The language in 1803.2 and 1803.6 controls.

Also, the example in post #11 was residential, so most likely the International Residential Code applied. The equivalent of IBC 107.1 is R106.1, which makes no reference to geotechnical reports. So IBC 107.1 is likely not relevant to the original example.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

IBC 1803.2 requires that geotechnical investigations be conducted. The exception to 1803.2 says the Building Official "... shall be permitted to waive the requirement for a geotechnical investigation where satisfactory data from adjacent areas is available that demonstrates an investigation is not necessary for any of the conditions in Sections 1803.5.1 through 1803.5.6 and Sections 1803.5.10 and 1803.5.11." So the geotechnical investigation and report are only not required IF the BO waives it, and he/she may do that only when there is satisfactory data available. It's not the applicant's call whether or not to provide it. The applicant has to request NOT to provide it, and the BO doesn't have to waive the requirement.

Likewise, the exception to 107.1 allows the BO to waive any of the required submittals " ... if it is found that the nature of the work applied for is such that review of construction documents is not necessary to obtain compliance with this code."