Yikes
SAWHORSE
I started to comment on this in another thread, but I figure it's worth its own discussion. I have a quasi-municipal California client that runs a convention center consisting of multiple buildings constructed from the 1930's to the 2000s, all of which were plan-checked, built (with inspections), issued certificates of occupancy, and had many subsequent inspections. Some buildings are also deemed historic.
A recent Fire Dept. annual inspection resulted in dozens of citations for non-compliance with the 2013 California Fire Code. However, they were not citing the minimum provisions of CFC Chapter 11 for existing buildings; rather, the fire inspector was treating all EXISTING structures as if they were subject to the requirements for NEW buildings. Many of the citations are turning out to be bogus, because upon further research the buildings were in compliance with the code under which they were originally permitted.
When I challenged the inspector on this, he conceded that he did not have access to copies of the older codes, nor did he have the working knowledge of those codes, nor did he refer to the city's records for certificates of occupancy or inspections. (It should be noted that those records would fill a file cabinet!). He said that due to lack of time and experience, his approach was to simply write citations based on the 2013 code as if for new buildings, then leave it to the owner and their Design Professionals (me) to respond with research and explanation of the applicable older codes.
I disagree with this approach, even though I get business from helping defend my client. I think that once a building has obtained C of O, the fire inspector has the responsibility to properly reference the older codes, and NOT shift the burden of proving ongoing compliance back to the owner. Otherwise, that is like annually plan-checking the old buildings all over again.
What do you think? Is it reasonable to expect a fire inspector to research and cite the old codes that still apply to the buildings? Is it reasonable to expect them to access the old C of Os, and to have their own copy of codes going back to the 1930s? I know they are busy, understaffed, etc., but that shouldn't be my client's problem, right?
A recent Fire Dept. annual inspection resulted in dozens of citations for non-compliance with the 2013 California Fire Code. However, they were not citing the minimum provisions of CFC Chapter 11 for existing buildings; rather, the fire inspector was treating all EXISTING structures as if they were subject to the requirements for NEW buildings. Many of the citations are turning out to be bogus, because upon further research the buildings were in compliance with the code under which they were originally permitted.
When I challenged the inspector on this, he conceded that he did not have access to copies of the older codes, nor did he have the working knowledge of those codes, nor did he refer to the city's records for certificates of occupancy or inspections. (It should be noted that those records would fill a file cabinet!). He said that due to lack of time and experience, his approach was to simply write citations based on the 2013 code as if for new buildings, then leave it to the owner and their Design Professionals (me) to respond with research and explanation of the applicable older codes.
I disagree with this approach, even though I get business from helping defend my client. I think that once a building has obtained C of O, the fire inspector has the responsibility to properly reference the older codes, and NOT shift the burden of proving ongoing compliance back to the owner. Otherwise, that is like annually plan-checking the old buildings all over again.
What do you think? Is it reasonable to expect a fire inspector to research and cite the old codes that still apply to the buildings? Is it reasonable to expect them to access the old C of Os, and to have their own copy of codes going back to the 1930s? I know they are busy, understaffed, etc., but that shouldn't be my client's problem, right?
