• 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.

The Never-Ending Struggle Against the Building Department: A Contractor’s Lament

jar546

CBO
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,718
Location
Not where I really want to be
You wouldn’t believe the kind of hoops they make us jump through these days. Back in the good old days, a handshake and a roll of duct tape could fix anything. But now? The building department has their noses in everything. Plans examiners, inspectors—heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if they start sending people to check if my coffee is up to code.

Take last week, for example. We’re trying to wrap up a simple project—nothing fancy, just a little commercial build-out. We slap some drywall up, throw in a few outlets, and call it a day. But no, here comes Mr. Inspector with his fancy clipboard and tape measure, acting like we committed some kind of crime because, apparently, “the electrical work doesn’t meet code.”

Code, code, code—that’s all they ever talk about. I mean, sure, we might have used the wrong gauge wire, but come on, who’s really going to notice? It’s not like the building is going to burn down or anything. And don’t even get me started on GFCI outlets—do they really think someone’s going to be using a hairdryer in the breakroom sink?

Then there’s the plans examiner. I swear, those guys live to make our lives miserable. We send in a set of plans that we know worked just fine on another job, and they send them back with a 20-page list of “comments.” Comments, mind you—not helpful suggestions, but comments that make it sound like we don’t know what we’re doing. Things like “fire separation requirements” and “structural load calculations.” Who has time for all that? We’re trying to get the job done, not impress some guy with a ruler and a red pen.

And don’t think it’s just us—they hold up everyone’s projects. I mean, deadlines don’t matter to these people. They think it’s all about 'safety' and 'compliance.' Meanwhile, we're out here, working 12-hour days, trying to make an honest living, and they have the nerve to tell us we can’t cut corners. It's almost like they don’t appreciate our creativity!

And don’t even mention the permit process. You'd think we were applying for national security clearance just to build a simple deck. Submit a permit application, and boom—six weeks later, you might hear back if you’re lucky. Meanwhile, the client’s calling us every day asking why it’s taking so long. Yeah, because it’s totally our fault the department wants to know things like “structural integrity” and “proper footing depth.”

But hey, it's fine. We contractors know how to work around them. A little charm here, a little "interpretation" of the code there—no harm, no foul, right? Except when they catch us, and suddenly it’s a "serious violation." Give me a break!

In the end, I guess it’s our job to deal with these so-called experts and their "regulations," but you know what? If the building falls down 10 years from now, that's on them for not letting us do it our way in the first place.
 
It might be my fault. I tell people the only thing you can't use duct tape for is duct. I'll stop.
 
My experience with many Plans Examiners on many projects is that they will wait until the last possible day before their boss yells at them, then they will staple a standard correction list to the plans, without even looking at them to see if we had already addressed the issues. This is especially true of 3rd party plan check consultants.
Some larger municipalities, such a s city of LA, publish their standard correction lists on line. In the early 2000s, it got to the point where I would print their correction list plan-check my own set of plans, mark each correction with the sheet/detail # where the answer could be found, and turn that in withthe plans. Effectively, I was doing their plan check for them.
Interestingly, when CalGreen started up, it kind of did a similar thing, requiring forms to be posted on the plans indicating the detail cross-reference where CalGreen measures were implemented.
 
Check out this video:

At first I thought, oh it's the usual litany of developer complaints.
But he asserts that other large Los Angeles cities, such as San Diego, are much more responsive and are not cutting corners on code compliance.
 
It might be my fault. I tell people the only thing you can't use duct tape for is duct. I'll stop

I can't count how many times I've said almost those exact words over the last 20 years!

Growing up on a farm our old go to for fixing anything was baling wire. Whenever my dad bought a load of hay where the bales were held together with wire instead of twine he made sure to save it. It's not used anymore so maybe that's why things fall apart now.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: ICE
My experience with many Plans Examiners on many projects is that they will wait until the last possible day before their boss yells at them, then they will staple a standard correction list to the plans, without even looking at them to see if we had already addressed the issues. This is especially true of 3rd party plan check consultants.
My first reaction was to be indignant. I am given a few weeks depending on the type of review, and I start immediately. Often, using my magical powers I can find the plans that are in the system, but due to "administrative" issues haven't been sent to me and start those reviews before I am even supposed to know about them. I have never, and will never use any sort of standard correction list.

My process is to start each plan immediately, often working on several plans at once. I make several complete reviews of each plan, revisiting each one as something else occurs to me that might help my understanding of them. Most of the time there are a handful of issues I am not sure of and I spend time researching. My last pass is to revisit each comment, making sure they are written in a way that can be understood, that each plan page reference and code citation is correct, and that the marked plans match the summary I also provide. My normal timeline, even with all that is to return the review a week early on average.

My second reaction was that, from what I see from other reviews, your are probably correct. Just not for me.

Now it's my turn. From my experience with many design professionals is a submittal of a mish-mash of disjointed plans, everything from the wrong codes, to missing seals, to missing documents, nevermind ANY attempt to adhere to the codes. My first pass is basically trying to make sense of what is being proposed and finding some order in the chaos. They wait until they are forced to submit this mish-mash by some internal timeline so they can meet that deadline, then tell the owners that we are holding their permit up. But, from what I can tell that is probably not applicable to those who frequent this forum.

Neither designers nor code officials are all the same.
 
"And don’t even mention the permit process. You'd think we were applying for national security clearance just to build a simple deck. Submit a permit application, and boom—six weeks later, you might hear back if you’re lucky. Meanwhile, the client’s calling us every day asking why it’s taking so long. Yeah, because it’s totally our fault the department wants to know things like “structural integrity” and “proper footing depth.”"

I love this part. My sister hired a contractor to get her a deck permit and build it out. Back and forth it went for like 4 months. The contractor could not get a permit and could not figure out the comments. She calls me up and tells me the problem. I said, send me a plat of survey and where you want the deck and its size. She asked if I wanted the comments and I told her no I wont need them. I get the plat, see the location and size they want. Google earth it and figure the height off grade (about 3 treads needed.) Drew on the plat of survey the location desired and called out new deck with two dimension for the deck and one more off the rear corner. Showed the three treads. Grabbed a piece of graph paper and laid out the deck post hole plans, added required notes and accurate size of piers with some quick calcs for 3000 psf and tributary area. Added beams and joists correctly sized. Showed locations of guard rail posts and indicated a detail for attachment. Sent my sister the plat, plans, details from the DCA6 for guard rail attachment, elevation of guard rail, ledger board attachment and anchor spacing and lateral load device. Indicated three treads no open risers with two 8" dia. piers. I may have spent 20-25 minutes putting it all together. I then told her to have the contractor go over the plans and proposal for her to submit.

One week later my sister calls me up to thank me as she was just given a permit to build the deck.

None of this is rocket science. If this is your field of work as a contractor, you should know what you are doing and it shouldn't take all that much of your time.
 
None of this is rocket science. If this is your field of work as a contractor, you should know what you are doing and it shouldn't take all that much of your time.

The problem is, half of them haven't a clue what they are doing. "Chuck with a truck," ain't never needed no learnin'.
 
A pickup truck with a rifle rack in the back window to hold the 6 ft level, a cell phone and a dog to ride around in the truck with you and you are a general contractor in the state of Montana who can legally build anything from a shed to a hospital
 
Once upon a time in Los Angeles, circa 2010. There's been no change since then:
https://www.ladowntownnews.com/news...cle_de3ca8cd-b284-5e46-b664-d654ad2f8612.html

City Hall Abandons ‘12 to 2’ Development Reform​

Consultant to Overhaul Entitlement Process​

by Ryan Vaillancourt​
Sep 3, 2010​
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES - More than two years after Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced the “12-to-2” reform plan to streamline the city’s infamously slow development entitlement and permitting process, those plans have died a slow death. The city is now turning to a private consultant for advice on developing a new system...​
Death of a Plan
It’s not entirely clear why the 12-to-2 plan, which had wide political support and strong backing from the business community was never implemented. At least in theory, the plan was simple: Reduce from 12-to-2 the number of city departments that developers would deal with to approve a project.
As the process stands, developers, small business owners and homeowners — anyone with a large-scale project — must ferry their plans back and forth among several different agencies, which often give conflicting directions. The city’s business community has been clamoring for years for a reduction in a web of red tape that they say entangles developers, delays projects and discourages investment.​
Under 12-to-2, customers would interface with the Planning Department for all entitlement approvals, then deal strictly with Building and Safety for permits and inspections. But an idea that may sound simple on paper proved far more challenging to implement.
“It doesn’t seem that complicated and yet it did not happen,” said Gary Toebben, chief executive officer of the L.A. Area Chamber of Commerce. “The best we can surmise from outside City Hall is that the internal department heads weren’t able to make it work for whatever reason, or didn’t choose to make it work.”​
Ovrom confirmed that internal friction is indeed partly to blame. He recalls one department head say they didn’t want to be part of the system, and suggested that Ovrom just make it “11-to-2.” Ovrom said a staff member from a different department told him that they were instructed by their boss to never say anything, to never contribute, at 12-to-2 meetings. He declined to identify the department heads that resisted, but he said that they’re no longer employed by the city.​
In the past year, key officials to depart from departments with major influence in the entitlement and permit process include Gail Goldberg, former director of the Planning Department. Goldberg was a co-author of 12-to-2, and spoke publicly in favor of the plan. Other department heads that have left include Ovrom’s predecessor Andrew Adelman and former CRA chief Cecilia Estolano. Adelman left in a cloud of controversy tied to an alleged sexual assault that did not lead to any charges. Estolano told Downtown News that she left her post voluntarily to pursue a job in sustainable development.​
But the larger challenge to implementation, according to Ovrom and Beutner, was the sheer size and complexity of the city’s bureaucracy. Even with willing department heads, 12-to-2 would have been far more complicated to enact than it seemed on paper, they said.​
“The size of the city bureaucracy and the procedural difference between departments turned out to be a lot more complex and a lot more difficult than we ever imagined,” Ovrom said. “So active and passive resistance from department heads is an issue but 80% of the problem was just the complexity.”​
...

Click on the link for the whole article.
 
Back
Top