• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Stamped Doesn’t Mean Safe: Lessons from the Hyatt Regency Collapse

Yikes said:
Los Angeles Building and Safety goes a step further - - they've turned deferred approvals into a profit center.
They got 107.3.4.1 ("deferred submittals") removed from their adoption of the California Building Code, so that deferred submittals are no longer part of regular code compliance. Instead, for each deferred submittal, LADBS requires the applicant to submit a "modification request" per 104.10 for even considering the use of a deferred submittal. They charge several hundred dollars for this, in addition to the separate plan check fees that occur later for the deferred submittal review itself.
Click to expand...
Stop giving me ideas ;);)jk.
 
Sifu said:
Trusses are a great example of passing the buck. And a great example of most BCO's not giving a shlt. I would estimate that well over 50% of the wood frame buildings that come using wood trusses draw a few lines on the roof framing plan and say "pre-engineered truss drawings by others". I ask for the truss package, and once we get past the "deferred" argument I get the truss drawings (sealed by the TEOR). I then get to go back and ask the EOR where the structural supports are that have been designed for the reaction provided by the TEOR. Usually they say they are designed by the TEOR, but that has never been the case. It takes 2 or three reviews to finally get the truss drawings to align with the structural drawings. And I get told the ever present "nobody else makes us do that", and I can vouch for that as many AHJ's don't even glance at that. A similar scenario lays out on most PEMB projects.

More and more I receive incomplete plans that are "deferring" more and more elements of the design. More and more I just hit them with an incomplete submittal correction. More and more they run to the CBO. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Click to expand...
Had to deal with this issue recently where the SEOR was fighting with a local building department that they were not responsible for the integration of the trusses into the building. Resulted in this bulletin.
 

Attachments

Inspector Gadget said:
I run it on a case-by-case basis. For some simple buildings (a garage with a gable roof) there's really no need to delay the application. However, once there are complicated rooflines, or fire-blocking questions, then we require the design beforehand. Anything more than 300m2 requires a truss plan prior to permit issuance.
Click to expand...
Agree.

This was a simple plan....Aug. 2024 I received a plan for a 160' long by 160' long L-shape building. The roof plan provided the line drawing and "roof trusses 24" o.c.". The truss shop drawings provided for two different trusses, each 60' and a valley set, but no support girder for the change in direction and were not sealed, and came with no placement diagram. I asked for sealed drawings, integrated into the "engineered" plans along with both permanent and temporary bracing as required by the IBC. The engineered roof framing plans also had the "roof trusses @ 24" o.c.", showed an over frame at the previously mentioned girder/support line. The engineered plan used the wrong code for the design, listed the wrong jurisdiction for the project (not even the right county), and referenced a single "hurricane clip" at each truss. No wall packs for bearing the supposed girder, only a perimeter foundation, and a page full of generic copy/paste details.

A few months later I received a resubmittal. Less than 1/2 of the comments were addressed, but not any for the engineering or roof framing. The new plan now showed a bearing wall at the truss change in direction on the architectural plan, but no new structural plans. That was the sole response to the comments.

Still unresolved. This is a simple plan, it could have easily been approved on day 1, certainly on the second review, but their response only opened more comments because now I have a bearing interior wall with no footing, no framing, no structural plans at all, and still no trusses. This is a professional engineer who designed this. The code requirements are pretty basic.

Before I started reviewing for this AHJ this would have been approved as is on the first submittal. The reason they brought me in was to fix that. So we are approaching a year, I am sure they have complained to anyone who will listen, and are further from approval than when they started. The biggest hang up is the trusses, and an engineer who is obviously not integrating them into the plans.
 
Sifu said:
Still unresolved. This is a simple plan, it could have easily been approved on day 1, certainly on the second review, but their response only opened more comments because now I have a bearing interior wall with no footing, no framing, no structural plans at all, and still no trusses. This is a professional engineer who designed this. The code requirements are pretty basic.
Click to expand...

Not all professional engineers act professionally.

A year or so ago I sat in a meeting with my boss, the property owner, and a structural engineer to discuss foundation drawings for a pre-engineered metal building. The foundation drawings were horribly, horribly inadequate. The owner is a mechanical contractor, and HE could see the drawings were unbuildable.

The engineer actually told us that because he had sealed and signed the drawings, the Building Department had no right to review them or to question them.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
The engineer actually told us that because he had sealed and signed the drawings, the Building Department had no right to review them or to question them.
Click to expand...

:eek:
107.3 Examination of Documents​

The building official shall examine or cause to be examined the accompanying submittal documents and shall ascertain by such examinations whether the construction indicated and described is in accordance with the requirements of this code and other pertinent laws or ordinances.
 
Yikes said:

:eek:​

107.3 Examination of Documents​

The building official shall examine or cause to be examined the accompanying submittal documents and shall ascertain by such examinations whether the construction indicated and described is in accordance with the requirements of this code and other pertinent laws or ordinances.
Click to expand...

I didn't say we accepted his preposterous statement ... :cool:
 
My first real experience on the path to learning that engineers weren't supergods came when I caught a glimpse of a plan that another inspector was going to rubber-stamp because "it's got a stamp."
There were 18 violations of Code, and those were only the substantial ones: improper exit design, an exit that had utility stuff under the stairs - not fire rated - doors swinging in the wrong direction, no fire separations, that sort of thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top