Should builders permit their own projects? Post-fire LA considers a radical idea

[Yikes]

In my state the building department is required to pass or deny a permit within 15 business days and a stamped plan in 5 days or they are automatically deemed approved.

Is that specific to single family residences? I assume they give you more time on large, complex buildings.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

10. Other Requirements.

a. Structural plans shall be signed and stamped by a structural engineer with a valid license from the State of California.​

b. Energy calculations shall be signed and stamped by an engineer with a valid license from the State of California, as determined by LADBS and as set forth in the implementation guidelines.​

c. An affidavit, to the satisfaction of the City, signed by the architect, structural engineer and the property owner indemnifying the City. This affidavit shall be recorded with the County Recorder’s office. A copy of the recorded affidavit shall be provided to LADBS prior to building permit issuance.​

d. Other requirements as deemed necessary by LADBS.​

How typical: gut the safety requirements, and then require the participants to indemnify the government for not doing its job in keeping the populace safe.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Why is CA so slow. In my state the building department is required to pass or deny a permit within 15 business days and a stamped plan in 5 days or they are automatically deemed approved.

What's the logic of allowing less time for stamped plans? Licensed professionals make just as many mistakes and unlicensed building designers.

 

[TheCommish]

Does the program allow the architect to do construction inspections or will BO have that responsibility. Lacking a separate inspections is the fox guarding the hen house

 

[Yikes]

How typical: gut the safety requirements, and then require the participants to indemnify the government for not doing its job in keeping the populace safe.

The safety requirements (codes) remain in place. It's the process of verification of safety requirements (plan check) that is proposed to change.

 

[Yikes]

Does the program allow the architect to do construction inspections or will BO have that responsibility. Lacking a separate inspections is the fox guarding the hen house

Many of the homes that were lost in the fire were originally constructed in an era prior to plan check and significant inspections. They lasted for a hundred years.

 

[ICE]

They lasted for a hundred years

Those houses were built by craftsmen. Not enough of them to go around now.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

The safety requirements (codes) remain in place. It's the process of verification of safety requirements (plan check) that is proposed to change.

Yes, I understand that. The system we have is one of checks and balances. The architects and engineers are (theoretically) required to design in compliance with the codes, and the AHJs (building officials and fire marshals) provide a layer of confirmation to verify that the design professionals have met the codes. So now this city wants to eliminate the verification layer -- BUT the city doesn't want to accept any responsibility or liability for removing that layer of protection. They want the design professionals to indemnify them (the city) for abdicating its responsibility.

The process of verification isn't going to "change." This proposal simply removes it.

Typical governmental hypocrisy.

 

[tmurray]

Those houses were built by craftsmen. Not enough of them to go around now.

This is very true. In addition, how we are living in homes is different (more time inside), we have higher expectations of the performance(particularly comfort) of our homes, and finally the technology/materials have evolved.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Is that specific to single family residences? I assume they give you more time on large, complex buildings.

Yes it is. Just one or two homes or townhouses.

What's the logic of allowing less time for stamped plans? Licensed professionals make just as many mistakes and unlicensed building designers.

No logic, made by politicians.

 

[Yikes]

I will be interested to see if the insurance companies, mortgage holders or other lien holders will get on board with this.

 

[arwat23]

Why is CA so slow. In my state the building department is required to pass or deny a permit within 15 business days and a stamped plan in 5 days or they are automatically deemed approved.

Where I work, it's because every building department is horrendously understaffed. Worst, even though the building departments are one of the few departments that actually make the cities / counties money, they aren't given the budget to hire more people.

One jurisitication near me takes up to two weeks just to process an application, then another 2-4 weeks for all agencies to review the plans, then another 3-4 days to process all of the reviews and send a response to the applicant.

The few times we catch the building department is a slow period, they get everything completed within 2-3 weeks, so it seems to just be because of the number of staff.

 

[Joe.B]

Where I work, it's because every building department is horrendously understaffed. Worst, even though the building departments are one of the few departments that actually make the cities / counties money, they aren't given the budget to hire more people.

One jurisitication near me takes up to two weeks just to process an application, then another 2-4 weeks for all agencies to review the plans, then another 3-4 days to process all of the reviews and send a response to the applicant.

The few times we catch the building department is a slow period, they get everything completed within 2-3 weeks, so it seems to just be because of the number of staff.

That's a symptom of poor leadership. Either the BO, or more likely up the chain. There are CA laws that say building departments can charge the fees "reasonably required" to run the department and those fees can't be used by general funds.

HSC 19132.3. The governing body of any county or city, including a charter city, may adopt an ordinance prescribing fees for filing applications pursuant to this chapter, but the fees shall not exceed the amount reasonably required by the local enforcement agency to issue permits pursuant to this chapter, and shall not be levied for general revenue purposes. The fees shall be imposed pursuant to Section 66016 of the Government Code. Where the Department of Housing and Community Development is the enforcement agency, the Commission of Housing and Community Development may establish a schedule of fees to pay the cost of administration and enforcement of this chapter. All rules and regulations promulgated by the commission under the authority of this part shall be promulgated pursuant to Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

 

[arwat23]

That's a symptom of poor leadership. Either the BO, or more likely up the chain. There are CA laws that say building departments can charge the fees "reasonably required" to run the department and those fees can't be used by general funds.

From my understanding, it's both the the city council's and BO's fault in my area. The building department I work with the most is the only department in the entire city that doesn't spend more than it takes in. The city has had a massive deficit for years, even before the pandemic, so yeah, poor leadership somewhere. Why only one department is capable of making money is beyond me.

The BO is a story for another time... there's crazy conflict of interest there that I'm surprised hasn't resulted in a lawsuit yet, but that's unique to one of the cities.

Most other building departments in my area have recently outsourced most of their work to 3rd party agencies, which has definitely sped things up. Nowhere near a 15-day turnaround though.

 

[Joe.B]

Most other building departments in my area have recently outsourced most of their work to 3rd party agencies, which has definitely sped things up. Nowhere near a 15-day turnaround though.

Yes, this is the trend for jurisdictions in high-populous areas. In some ways, it makes sense, those companies are not bound by jurisdictional boundaries so they can shift staff around as necessary. I can see why it's appealing to jurisdictions too, they don't have to worry about HR stuff and the work gets done. Since fees are collected there's essentially no "cost" to the city. Most finance departments love pass-through accounting, it's easy. collect a fee, keep a cut, and pay it out.

It's the public who loses. The contractors get the shaft, owners get nothing, there might be compliance, but who knows. Privatized public service is definitely shady ground. Everything I've heard from the public is bad, bad, and worse.

More Beef anyone?

 

[steveray]

Yes, this is the trend for jurisdictions in high-populous areas. In some ways, it makes sense, those companies are not bound by jurisdictional boundaries so they can shift staff around as necessary. I can see why it's appealing to jurisdictions too, they don't have to worry about HR stuff and the work gets done. Since fees are collected there's essentially no "cost" to the city. Most finance departments love pass-through accounting, it's easy. collect a fee, keep a cut, and pay it out.

It's the public who loses. The contractors get the shaft, owners get nothing, there might be compliance, but who knows. Privatized public service is definitely shady ground. Everything I've heard from the public is bad, bad, and worse.

More Beef anyone?

We don’t have third party in CT because no one can do it cheaper than what they give us for a budget…

 

[ICE]

If the City of Los Angeles adopts the self certification program for the disaster, nothing will change in how the building dept, functions. Work flow will remain as it has been. Staffing will remain at current levels. Revenue will increase due to the additional permits. Once the construction gets going, inspectors will have a lot more to look at.

Speaking of inspectors, know this: They will be the first, last and only B/S personnel that have an intimate interaction with the project. The mistakes and the attendant strife will be on the inspector's plate.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Well, me may be able to do the first plan review quickly but it could be months till we get something back. Especially when the plans not much more than just a square.

 

[Yikes]

If the City of Los Angeles adopts the self certification program for the disaster, nothing will change in how the building dept, functions. Work flow will remain as it has been. Staffing will remain at current levels. Revenue will increase due to the additional permits. Once the construction gets going, inspectors will have a lot more to look at.

As I recently stated on another thread:
On April 11, it was announced that LA County issued its first fire rebuild permit in Altadena, 3 months after the Eaton fire. This permit was announced immediately after negative press stories about lack of action.
That first permit was for a home that had been built only 2 years before, with full plans and permits, under codes that were still valid. The County already said no plan check was required under those circumstances, just a rubber-stamp for the new permit.
I’ve heard from reliable sources that these plans were submitted and sat at the building department for 5 weeks before the negative press came out, and then suddenly it was ready-to-issue.

 

[Genduct]

Scary.

I've been in my current position for almost four years, I was in my previous ABO job for five years. In all that time, I don't think I saw a single set of construction documents by a licensed design professional (architect or PE) that was sufficiently error-free that I was willing to approve it on the first submission. And the ones I'm seeing at the current job seem to be, on average, worse than what I saw at the previous job. Which means design professionals are either dumber now than they were a decade ago, or lazier.

My gut says they're lazier. They compete for work based on fees, and too many of them take projects for fees that are grossly inadequate to allow preparing a decent set of construction documents. But the building code doesn't care about their fee structure or their profit margin. The codes require that certain information be provided. The code is, by its own definition, the minimum standard for safe buildings. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask design professionals to provide the minimum information required by the building code.

As much as I agree with the quality of the "Design Professionals" which can be extended to many of the "General Contractors" ( who are basically Handymen and neither group seems to understand what holds what up AND keeps it from Falling Down, I think the question is about REPAIRS which maybe well below the requirements of a Level 1 or 2 ALTERATION
So, to keep the cost and delays down, how about one of those Handymen GC's applying for a Repair Inspection that would have a Preliminary Inspection to make sure the "Contractor isn't over their head and really needs a design professional?

With the ICC Rules, Repairs/ renovations ( cosmetic work with no structural) don't need a bldg permit. This request for a Preliminary Inspection would then avoid future name calling an violations when a good (hopefully licenced or registered) Contractor find themselves in these 2nd quessing situations

 

[jar546]

This is hands down one of the dumbest ideas I have ever seen floated. Contractors have spent the last hundred years showing what happens when nobody is holding them accountable, cut corners, dangerous work, and the public getting hurt. There is a reason building codes exist. There is a reason independent plan review and inspections exist. People had to die for us to learn these lessons, and now somebody thinks the answer is to just pretend all that history never happened?

Here is why this is a complete disaster waiting to happen, ranked by importance:

1. Conflict of Interest:
Contractors are paid to get projects done fast and cheap. Giving them the power to permit and approve their own work is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse. It's not just bad policy; it's common sense that this will blow up.

2. Planning and Zoning Violations:
This is not just about the building code. Contractors will start ignoring zoning laws, setbacks, floodplain rules, ADA access, lot coverage limits, height restrictions — everything. Once the permit is in their hands, they will push boundaries and dare someone to stop them later.

3. Loss of Building Code Enforcement:
The building code is the minimum, not a suggestion. Without third-party plan review and inspections, the minimum will be treated like an option, not a requirement. Safety goes out the window when nobody is watching.

4. Insurance and Liability Nightmares:
You think lawsuits are bad now? Wait until the first building collapses, or a fire spreads because of garbage construction. Insurance companies will either pull out of markets completely or jack rates so high that normal people cannot afford to live there. Taxpayers will be stuck with the bill.

5. Erosion of Public Trust:
The public still believes that somebody neutral is reviewing projects to make sure they are safe. You pull that out from under them, and you destroy trust not just in the system, but in local government itself.

6. Long-Term Economic Damage:
Bad construction today becomes emergency repairs, skyrocketing insurance claims, lawsuits, and property values crashing tomorrow. Some cities never fully recover from bad decisions like this. It poisons the well for decades.

Handing permitting power to contractors is not "streamlining," it is "deregulation" by another name. This is not how you rebuild stronger after a disaster. This is how you guarantee the next disaster happens even faster.

There is no good version of this idea. It needs to be killed before it sees the light of day. There are not enough good contractors out there to warrant a generic change like this. Unfortunately, the good contractors that we can trust won't be able to benefit because of those that are not capable of being trusted.

 

[bill1952]

Please clarify, but this is allowing a third party registered design professional to do plan review, correct? Not the builder nor the designer. And work still is inspected during and at end of construction by city? And only "small residential projects"?

Im only surprised third party RDPs can afford to do this or that owners can afford them.

 

[Joe.B]

Please clarify, but this is allowing a third party registered design professional to do plan review, correct? Not the builder nor the designer. And work still is inspected during and at end of construction by city? And only "small residential projects"?

Im only surprised third party RDPs can afford to do this or that owners can afford them.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

As much as I agree with the quality of the "Design Professionals" which can be extended to many of the "General Contractors" ( who are basically Handymen and neither group seems to understand what holds what up AND keeps it from Falling Down, I think the question is about REPAIRS which maybe well below the requirements of a Level 1 or 2 ALTERATION
So, to keep the cost and delays down, how about one of those Handymen GC's applying for a Repair Inspection that would have a Preliminary Inspection to make sure the "Contractor isn't over their head and really needs a design professional?

With the ICC Rules, Repairs/ renovations ( cosmetic work with no structural) don't need a bldg permit. This request for a Preliminary Inspection would then avoid future name calling an violations when a good (hopefully licenced or registered) Contractor find themselves in these 2nd quessing situations

We are not discussing "repairs" here. We are discussing parts of California where entire neighborhoods were burned to the ground by wild fires, requiring rebuilding of houses and other structures from the ground up.