• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

WA SB 5243 (2020-2021)

classicT

Moderator
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
3,231
Location
AZ, USA
For those of you in Washington, please send your senators a comment on this bill. This is ridiculous.

Basic premise is that if it is prepared by a design professional, jurisdictional review is dismissed. Just issue the permit.

Link to SB 5243

Brief Summary of Bill
  • Provides that any building permit applications submitted with plans or specifications signed by a professional engineer or architect must be deemed complete by the city or county building department with authority.
  • Allows the building department to review the application for general compliance with the zoning or other land use control ordinances in effect, but it may not impose substantial modifications or conditions on such submittals.
Staff Summary of Public Testimony:
PRO: This is a bill to streamline the permitting process. Right now there is a duplicative review by both an engineer or architect and the local building department. Washington State has a housing crisis and this bill is one way to streamline the permitting process. The city or county is not held liable for any issues with building under current law.
 
Then the builders and us inspectors have to correct the mistakes in the field? That's best case, worst case they will tell me to shove off because the plans say it's ok. We get stamped plans from architects or engineers with the wrong code cycle, or the wrong codes entirely, notes or details that have no relevance, and/or none where needed. We have one architect who obviously just cuts and pastes things in as boiler plate notes that may have been right in 2013, if ever. When they are given comments/corrections they simply change the year but don't update the note to reflect the actual code. He often has ADA notes from Ch 11B (commercial) for a single family home, we issue corrections and we get attitude about it. "It's my design. It's just boiler plate. It shouldn't matter. The contractors know the code." Then I'm out in the field and builders ask me, is this really okay? There's one note I see all the time from multiple designers that says "All outlets not GFCI protected must be AFCI protected." Really?? The builders are stumped because the plans show details that don't match what they actually have to do and the Architect ignores their calls and won't come to the job. It's pretty sad. They get paid for a pretty design and they are done. Obviously not all submittals are bad like that but the idea that we should simply issue a permit because they are stamped is ludicrous, in my opinion.
 
I received an email 'plan review notice' recently on a 1-story room-in-attic design (using mfg'd attic trusses) that I'd prescriptively engineered, including all pertinent construction details, bracing calcs etc....the notice was quite literally just an email comment from the plan reviewer stating that stamped engineering was required. When I replied requesting code citations for the parts of the design that did not qualify prescriptively his reply was...and I quote...

'We require stamped engineering on all 2-story home plans, please submit stamped engineering for your design."

I responded again with a lengthy rebuttal requesting he cite those specific building codes, RCW's or WAC's that require stamped engineering on 2-story homes in his county...not even bothering to argue that the design was in fact, by code, a 1-story design.

The plan reviewer's reply..."That is just how it's always been done here in _____ county"

Again I replied that he would need to cite reference proving his claim or a statement to the effect that he was exercising his right to insist on stamped engineering so that I could appeal his decision.

A few days later he replied, simply stating "the plans will be approved today and a permit will be issued to the homeowner"

----flip side---

Now, I am only a residential designer...early last year a homeowner contacted me, needing help to extricate their plans (2 homes in fact), from plan review where it had been stuck awaiting response to a plan review notice from 6 months before. Designed by an architect, the main house had been 'engineered' by a PE and the 2nd mother-in-law plan had been very badly prescriptively engineered...the plan did not qualify.

The homeowner broke ground before permit was approved and the county office basically gave me carte blanche to correct the plans and I ended up redesigning, re-engineering and re-drawing them for both homes, without any further plan review notices. The original engineer approved and stamped my extensive corrections to their work, without question (I sent the MIL plans to my engineer instead) and the county accepted it all without question as well, even performing foundation inspections pre-approval!

I was shocked at the lack of concern by all parties as this was almost 10k sqft of very custom design being corrected, but they didn't seem too concerned, as long as someone was willing to put their name on it.

Some of my biggest, most complicated projects have involved massively correcting plans drawn by architects and engineers...they should all be required to work onsite for a set time before they're allowed to design, stamp, or approve plans. To give them a free pass in plan review is dangerous in the extreme.
 
SDS, I agree with your statement, "architects and engineers...they should all be required to work onsite for a set time before they're allowed to design, stamp, or approve plans. To give them a free pass in plan review is dangerous in the extreme."

And to be fair, I would also like to see all Plans examiners and Inspectors required to work in the applicable trades for a set time before they're allowed to approve plans or inspect the work related to their certification.
 
This isn't a new idea. Places like New York and Chicago have all proposed this in one way or another. Closer to home, noise is being made about software programs that will design based on code, therefore rendering plan review obsolete (still trying to find out how that will work). If one looked at the history of a good plans examiner by examining the reviews, one would immediately see the need for review by a qualified third party. Of course, if you looked at a bad plans examiner, you might not be convinced.

I also see the point by SDS. There is no need to have a design professional stamp a plan when it can be approved prescriptively. I cut my teeth in a very prescriptive part of the country. I am now in an engineer-centric region, and some people have gotten lazy or never learned the prescriptive side.

Requiring a design professional for commercial jobs is common because it is a good starting point, better than the napkin, but still in need of review. But people seem to forget we have a thousand page code book for residential, written for the very purpose of not needing an engineer. It's a lot more work than "get an engineer", but it is the job.
 
Oh, I'd go a bit further even...let's throw manufactured truss design & engineering into the conversation.

Here is some brief reading material indicating the direction the whole idea of 'rubber-stamping' permit approval is going.

Structure Magazine - Code Requirements for Residential Roof Trusses

While I completely agree that the designer preparing the building plans, whether a mere residential designer, or an Architect, absolutely should review and approve the truss layout & engineering prior to completing their building plans, there is still a huge disconnect between these two disciplines.

Truss design can be done by anyone a truss manufacturer chooses to employ. It is very common that the initial truss designs are wrong in some way as a result. I was also a truss designer and mfg for about 10 years at the turn of the century (eek!) and always designed the truss packages for my home plans and got into the habit of reviewing them prior to completion...so I've already been doing for years what that article above is pushing here in 2021.

I very often find the truss package is wrong the first time, even when working with a regular contact...nobody knows the design better than the designer right? So the designer should make sure it's right for their design.

But...combine a lack of review of truss design by the architect or engineer with the lack of proper training in the truss design field...with a jurisdiction that does not provide plan review if an architect or engineer has stamped the plans and you have a recipe for disaster.
 
For those of you in Washington, please send your senators a comment on this bill. This is ridiculous.

Basic premise is that if it is prepared by a design professional, jurisdictional review is dismissed. Just issue the permit.

Link to SB 5243

Brief Summary of Bill
  • Provides that any building permit applications submitted with plans or specifications signed by a professional engineer or architect must be deemed complete by the city or county building department with authority.
  • Allows the building department to review the application for general compliance with the zoning or other land use control ordinances in effect, but it may not impose substantial modifications or conditions on such submittals.
Staff Summary of Public Testimony:
PRO: This is a bill to streamline the permitting process. Right now there is a duplicative review by both an engineer or architect and the local building department. Washington State has a housing crisis and this bill is one way to streamline the permitting process. The city or county is not held liable for any issues with building under current law.
Drafted based on suggestion from a Construction Defects law firm lobbyist?
 
And to be fair, I would also like to see all Plans examiners and Inspectors required to work in the applicable trades for a set time before they're allowed to approve plans or inspect the work related to their certification.
Would not be possible in my state because we inspectors/plan reviewers don't make as much as the tradesmen. We have a lot of good plan reviewers that never picked up a tool.
 
Would not be possible in my state because we inspectors/plan reviewers don't make as much as the tradesmen. We have a lot of good plan reviewers that never picked up a tool.
Rick, that may be a sad reality. The sad reality is that the persons responsible for ensuring construction integrity and safety aren't valued as much as those who do the construction. (Or the fire fighters.) I personally don't know of any plans examiners that make as much as the top trades people. But neither do most of the average trades persons. However, when you factor in the health benefits and job security given to code officials, plans examiners and inspectors, it doesn't seem unfair.
 
However, when you factor in the health benefits and job security given to code officials, plans examiners and inspectors, it doesn't seem unfair.

I don't know where that comes from. The benefits suck with the 3rd party inspection companies I worked for! I have been laid off from 3rd party inspection companies when they lost jurisdictions or when construction slows down.
 
I don't know where that comes from. The benefits suck with the 3rd party inspection companies I worked for! I have been laid off from 3rd party inspection companies when they lost jurisdictions or when construction slows down.
I think he's referring to "government jobs" i.e. working for a city AHJ
 
Top