# Why RDPs are required to go through municipal plan review



## jar546 (Jun 13, 2019)

I've been thinking about this one for a while now but after some recent thread topics, I figured it's time.  Architects and engineers are human, just like contractors, inspectors and plans examiners.  We all make mistakes, we all miss things.  None of us live in Perfect World and the last time I checked, I still can't afford a ticket there.  There are a lot of reasons why Registered Design Professionals (RDPs) should go through the municipal plan review process, even though it may be flawed.

First and foremost.  As stated before we are all human and make mistakes.  It is always good to have a fresh set of eyes on the plan and specs.  Many firms have draftsmen doing the work and a quality QC review is sometimes lacking.  RDPs have a vested interest in their client and have a tendency to try to push the rules as far as they can in order to accommodate their clients.  I am NOT saying that RDPS are unscrupulous but that they are not as objective because of the flow of the money, aka "don't bite the hand that feeds you."  It takes a lot of training and experience to get to the level of RDP and I have worked with some fantastic, knowledgeable ones and of course some that I still wonder how they ever got a license.  I get complaints from contractors that think that some of the required inspection are "BS" and a waste of time, effort and money.  I remind them that not all contractors are like them and until you walk in the shoes of an inspector and see the disparity of code compliance and construction quality on like jobs, they will not understand.  What one person routinely passes, there is another contractor that fails miserably.  This is also true for RDPs.  I have some that really shine, have fantastic, detailed, code compliant drawings and others that quite frankly just plain, well,..you know what I mean.  Although I am a bit harsh here with the reality of the situations with RDPs, the same can be said about plans examiners.

As plans examiners most of us are held to a minimum standard for reviewing documents that is set by our state, county, or even municipality.  We should know what is and isn't required and what we need to see in order to ensure that the job is planned to the minimum code standards.  This does not always happen.  There are still areas of the country that have no competency based requirements for plans examiners and many are thrust into the position with little to no training or experience.  In addition, some are overwhelmed by having to review all disciplines and not just the one they are best suited for.  We also have to overbearing, chest thumping examiners that want what they want too.  Finding common ground is important to create a good balance between the code requirements and submissions is really the key along with good communication.

Another factor that the RDPs don't seem to always grasp is the quality of the contractors that will be carrying out the design.  Unfortunately we see a lot of the problems in the field that the RDPs do not as most never see the jobsite.  Often when a contractor fails an inspection, they point to the plans and say "but it's not shown on the plans" even though it may still be a requirement.  On another side, whenever we ask for more information on the plans we are told that we are holding up the job and creating additional costs.  This is a no-win situation for the AHJ.  On one end the contractor uses the plans for an excuse and on the other, plans have more information to eliminate those excuses.  As always, this is a balancing act but in the end, plan review is always a necessity, no matter how good you think your plans are.

What are some common items that you write up on RDP submitted plans as an examiner?  Please share below:


----------



## RLGA (Jun 13, 2019)

Jeff:

You state RDPs "push the rules as far as they can in order to accommodate their clients." From my experience working with architects, it is the architect pushing the limits on the rules to accommodate their designs--their clients, for the most part, want the projects to be safe and permittable. I have found that school districts and higher education institutions are very safety-conscious. Many developers couldn't care less about code compliance as long as the projects get built and it doesn't cost them a lot of money in the end.

However, your point about the need for jurisdictional review is spot on. Architects, who are _supposed _to be code experts, routinely do not understand the basics of code application. If there was no jurisdictional plan review, I'd say we'd be seeing _a lot _of architectural malpractice suits. I can't speak for the other design professions (mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection, etc.), but even then I see a lot of comments coming back from plan reviews for those disciplines.

With that said, I'm working on a project right now to correct a situation where the jurisdiction screwed up royally--they permitted a medical gas facility as a Group S-2 when the quantities submitted clearly indicated it was a Group H-3. It wasn't caught until the inspector was performing the CofO inspection! Now, the owner is having to pay around $100,000 dollars to modify the building to make it work legally.


----------



## jar546 (Jun 13, 2019)

RLGA said:


> Jeff:
> 
> You state RDPs "push the rules as far as they can in order to accommodate their clients." From my experience working with architects, it is the architect pushing the limits on the rules to accommodate their designs--their clients, for the most part, want the projects to be safe and permittable. I have found that school districts and higher education institutions are very safety-conscious. Many developers couldn't care less about code compliance as long as the projects get built and it doesn't cost them a lot of money in the end.
> 
> ...



Yes, I have seen many instances where a submission was nowhere near code compliant and when I called the RDP, the response was usually something like: "I told my client it would not work but we would submit it anyway and see if it gets through."  Enough said about that.

I do inspections for a county-wide school district and they are extremely safety conscious and the electrical specifications and requirements go well beyond the codes so I have to know both.  

Yes sir, it is not a perfect system.


----------



## TheCommish (Jun 13, 2019)

The FBI Has Arrived

No, not the Feds; the Fringing Building Inspector

If your reaction to the integration of a code official, plans examiner or other inspectors to your project either during the design process or for an inspection fills you with dread, maybe it is time to rethinking when the project team starts interfacing with the code officials.

While it may seem like the various code officials, community departments and other regulatory agencies sole purpose is to slow a project, raise the cost of the project or even stop the project I do not believe that is true.  Community officials are torn by a multitude of masters; first the code or regulations in place, second time which none of seem to have enough of, third the opinions of many, internal and external both for and against your project.

Some of us work in small community’s facing staffing changes, limited knowledge base for complex or large projects, what seems to be lack of infrastructure support the proposed project, impacts on the community and community opposition to a project. Or we work in a metropolitan area where there are engineers and other professionals on the city’s staff, full time inspectors and development departments to see the project through the labyrinth of planning, regulatory review permitting, construction, inspections, commissioning and occupancy.

It is my view that early interaction with the community’s regulatory agencies is beneficial to all. By using a collaborative approach and involving the communities’ regulatory staff in the permissible project process, following the submittal process as prescribed by the regulations, answering the staffs’ question and providing large, clear, color and appropriate visuals showing your project in the planning phase will go a long way to the project’s success.

As a building official the set of plans that presents the code summary and analysis, life safety information, occupancy load calculations with exiting distance travel on the in the first pages is the basics for an easy plan review. If you think the code official may have a question about it, include the answer in the code summary narrative cite the code section you are referring to. Follow up with summary information for each of the major building system at the beginning of those drawing sets will make those reviews much easier.   

The process move much smother if you are using the correct code versions for the location you project is to be built in. Nothing is more frustrating than have a submittal that does not include  the local code amendments, or worse the plans sheet indicate a code edition that has not been in use for years. I have seen plans submitted that had the building code edition wrong by two editions, with the reference codes wrong by 3 editions. Or the civil designer that was using neighboring states’ storm water calculations and did not want to understand close enough was not acceptable.


----------



## RLGA (Jun 13, 2019)

TheCommish said:


> As a building official the set of plans that presents the code summary and analysis, life safety information, occupancy load calculations with exiting distance travel on the *in the first pages is the basics for an easy plan review.* If you think the code official may have a question about it, include the answer in the code summary narrative cite the code section you are referring to. Follow up with summary information for each of the major building system at the beginning of those drawing sets will make those reviews much easier.


Bingo! If you don’t mind, I want to quote this paragraph for my presentations when I talk about code information on the drawings.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 13, 2019)

I had one last year that referenced the 2012 Uniform Building Code.


----------



## MtnArch (Jun 14, 2019)

In all fairness to we poor, heartless RDP's - I recently received a set of plan check comments on a residential stand-alone garage addition that referenced the UBC and ICBO.  I called the fire prevention professional to discuss it and he said "You're the first person who's brought up that our notes are so out-dated!"  I let him know that I wasn't picking on him, but they REALLY should have someone review ALL of their standard plan check boiler plate notes that they shovel back at US!!


----------



## Mark K (Jun 14, 2019)

The purpose of the building departments plan review is to review the project not to subject the RPD to a plancheck. The RDP who did the work will assist its client in responding to the plan check comments.  This distinction is more than semantics.

I have never relied on the plan checker or inspector to find flaws in the documents    Experience has shown that in many cases the plan checker has either not looked at the project or has done an inadequate job.

Of coarse when the RDP finds evidence of an inadequate review he dos not spend time complaining about the plan checker.  Instead he focuses on performing his job.

Do not assume that the RDPs are ignorant as to the likely quality of the contractors.  But realize that the RPD did not  typically have a say in the selecting of the contractor.  Also remember that the RDP is not in a position to perform detailed inspectionof the work nor to  direct the contractor.  All the RDP can do is make recommendations to its client.


----------



## jar546 (Jun 14, 2019)

MtnArch said:


> In all fairness to we poor, heartless RDP's - I recently received a set of plan check comments on a residential stand-alone garage addition that referenced the UBC and ICBO.  I called the fire prevention professional to discuss it and he said "You're the first person who's brought up that our notes are so out-dated!"  I let him know that I wasn't picking on him, but they REALLY should have someone review ALL of their standard plan check boiler plate notes that they shovel back at US!!



Yep, like I said, it is a problem in both direction.


----------



## TheCommish (Jun 14, 2019)

> Bingo! If you don’t mind, I want to quote this paragraph for my presentations
> when I talk about code information on the drawings.


You are free to do so.
Also, I have a list of do the things to cover if you would like to have a copy.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 14, 2019)

Like any professional, there are those that excel, those that are good, those that are mediocre, and those we wonder how do they keep their jobs, and as jar as pointed out it goes both ways.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 14, 2019)

Having worked in large and small Architectural Offices for over thirty years, I can tell you that most of the actual working drawings are done by *NON-Licensed individuals.  *They  usually do the best they can but do not have the expertise a "RDP" may have. Unless there is an in-house review drawings go out, stamped, in a haphazard condition.

There is a time restraint. Every minute you spend on that project, cost the firm money. Getting it submitted gets them the money to may payroll , "We will fix it later, when there is more time".
Some companies rely on the governmental plan checker to do the back check.

Plan checking is crucial.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 14, 2019)

jar546 said:


> Yes, I have seen many instances where a submission was nowhere near code compliant and when I called the RDP, the response was usually something like: "I told my client it would not work but we would submit it anyway and see if it gets through."  Enough said about that.
> 
> I do inspections for a county-wide school district and they are extremely safety conscious and the electrical specifications and requirements go well beyond the codes so I have to know both.
> 
> Yes sir, it is not a perfect system.



In CA all K-12's & CC's must go through DSA for review and be subject to full time inspection with oversight of inspectors by DSA SE's. 
Low bidders have a ball with this if coming from the private sector.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jun 18, 2019)

I try to do a plan review so I only need to fail it once or just red line a few things and pass it. But lots of times I don't even get basic information and if I don't make a long list of the info I need, sometimes just guessing on what they are doing, they will leave stuff off. And then, they will still leave stuff off.

Just got a stamped plan that shows how a high rack system will be built. Nothing about if it is inside or outside, anything about a building (I assume it's inside), site plan, codes used, occupation use, construction type, if there is any sprinklers, what will be stored, township wrong on application, egress, etc. I wonder how many times I will be reviewing this.


----------



## tmurray (Jun 18, 2019)

The way I always put it is that architects and engineers are old professions. Much older than building officials. There must be a reason we exist. 

I often get push back from architects because the "client wants it that way", but if I talk to the client, they don't really care. They just want a good building.

Sometimes I get a little education from RDPs on something I missed. It goes both ways.

I remember working on a tenant improvement project for a coffee shop. One of my notes asked for grab bars for the urinal and asked that if was possible within the scope of the project, to mount the urinal at the proper height for barrier free access. Unfortunately, this shop was built before these requirements came into the code, so the clear space in front of the urinal did not meet. My thoughts were to improve it as much as was practical. The response from the architect was initially a little worrisome, but after digging into it, they thought I wanted to make them move a plumbing wall to get the clear space as well. When I explained to them my position, they became super positive and, even though re-mounting the urinal was not initially part of the project, they included it in the scope of work to improve accessibility after consultation with the owner. There are always distinct advantages to us all working together.


----------



## rktect 1 (Jun 19, 2019)

Man, I don't even want to talk about my pet project right now.  I get pretty worked up and usually have a headache thinking about it.


----------



## jar546 (Jun 20, 2019)

Here is a perfect example from today:
I had an application to replace a slider on the 9th floor of a high-rise with a new hurricane/impact slider.  When reviewing the stamped letter from the engineer, I noticed that he based his design pressure on 15' elevation rather than the elevation of the actual install on the 9th floor.  In this case I suspect that he ran a calculation for a typical residential home, and may not have been told by the window installer that it was on the 9th floor of a high-rise.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 21, 2019)

jar546 said:


> Here is a perfect example from today:
> I had an application to replace a slider on the 9th floor of a high-rise with a new hurricane/impact slider.  When reviewing the stamped letter from the engineer, I noticed that he based his design pressure on 15' elevation rather than the elevation of the actual install on the 9th floor.  In this case I suspect that he ran a calculation for a typical residential home, and may not have been told by the window installer that it was on the 9th floor of a high-rise.


Design Professionals are routinely given wrong or intentionally given misinformation.
In almost forty years in the buisness, I know of only two engineers that have actually gone to a site, most send a low paid staff member or rely on second/third hand information.


----------



## MtnArch (Jun 21, 2019)

Slightly OT .. I worked in a firm and was asked to take over a restaurant remodel because the client was very upset with the project architect originally assigned to it; I was told that the "as-built" drawings had been field verified but there wasn't anything in the file showing any field dimensions, photos, etc.  As a personal rule I never trust anyone else's dimensions and took the as-built floor plan out to the existing space to verify a few of the dimensions - only to find out that if you crossed your eyes and squinted they kinda-sorta-maybe resembled each other.  It cost the firm a week of my time of field measuring and photographing the existing space and re-drafting it CORRECTLY; happy clients at the end of the project!


----------



## classicT (Jun 21, 2019)

I just received a covered deck designed by an engineer. Used the wrong minimum live load (WA amended to 60psf). Deck joists were over-spanned at both 40 and 60 psf LL. Ridge beam of cover was over-spanned and failed by 238%.

Negligence is a strong word to use, but what else do you call it? Anyone here ever turn anything over to a State Licensing Board?


----------



## mark handler (Jun 21, 2019)

Ty J. said:


> I just received a covered deck designed by an engineer. Used the wrong minimum live load (WA amended to 60psf). Deck joists were over-spanned at both 40 and 60 psf LL. Ridge beam of cover was over-spanned and failed by 238%.
> 
> Negligence is a strong word to use, but what else do you call it? Anyone here ever turn anything over to a State Licensing Board?


Yes
Designers pretending to be Architects or Engineers, some with fake stamps.
I have also talked with the CA Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists about a 90 year old Engineer stamping anything someone brings to him. Time to give it up....


----------



## Rick18071 (Jul 1, 2019)

About 10 years ago a senior man came in on a cane who is an certified architect came  and asked what I was reading. I said "the International Building Code".
He said "let me see it, I never saw one".

I hope he is retired by now.


----------



## Mark K (Jul 1, 2019)

I recognize that the favorite sport of plan checkers and inspectors is to bash architects and engineers.  Please note that architects and engineers could match you one for one with examples of plan checkers and inspectors that got it wrong.

I suggest that we should focus on the  question of whether the submission complies with the adopted regulations.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 1, 2019)

Mark K said:


> I recognize that the favorite sport of plan checkers and inspectors is to bash architects and engineers.  Please note that architects and engineers could match you one for one with examples of plan checkers and inspectors that got it wrong.
> 
> I suggest that we should focus on the  question of whether the submission complies with the adopted regulations.



I would not say it is a favorite sport, more like a least favorite as it causes more work.  I would like you to read my original post that started this thread as I discussed issues on both sides.  I just red-lined a set of plans for a high rise renovation that was listed on the prints as Type V construction and the 11th floor slab they are working on was described as 'slab on grade.'  Yes, there is a reason we have to check these.  There is a big difference between doing work penetrating a slab on grade and a post-tension slab so all of this information is crucial and needs to be right.


----------



## ADAguy (Jul 3, 2019)

Consider jar that we are in an age of loss of institutional memory and with it loss of the availability of  "peer" reviewers in both the public and private sectors or your example shouldn't have happened. NCARB  has "dumbed down" the exam to 6 sections from 9, and allows non-architectural majors with masters in Arch to qualify as a professional degree eligible to take the exam? These issues together with past recessions and retirements has deleted the pool so to speak. A few of us on the Forum represent those remaining, we can't be cloned unfortunately. The number of new firms and licenses issued since the 70's has further increased the demand for the services of the few of us remaining.
Unfortunately these comments will only continue. Law of deminishing returns?


----------



## tmurray (Jul 3, 2019)

Ty J. said:


> Negligence is a strong word to use, but what else do you call it? Anyone here ever turn anything over to a State Licensing Board?



I have, but not based on the engineer's design. He had complaints of this nature in the past and always seems to be able to explain them away. He also had a history of, using my boss' terminology, belittle, bullshit, and baffle. So, I rejected his work and waited for the inevitable. The next day he called and told me I was completely incompetent, that I clearly had no training whatsoever, and he was going to speak to the mayor and have me fired (for what it's worth, I both created and teach some of the courses required for certification to become a building official in my province). I calmly responded, Mr. <engineer>, if you are going to speak to me like that, I think this conversation is over. He then calmed down a little and I educated him as to why I was interpreting the code the way I was, which he agreed with at the end. But, I did send a complaint in to our local engineering society that regulates engineers here. They upheld my complaint and ultimately decided to let the engineer off with a warning, but I was told it was a very lengthy conversation with some on the complaints committee wishing to execute disciplinary action. This was more or less the outcome I expected. He is much more respectful now, I have shared what happened with others in my area to make sure he is treating them with the necessary professional courtesy.

Working as a designer, I have also had officials reject completely code compliant designs or construction because they wanted it built another way. One that was "better". They stepped well over the line of regulator into designer and were completely oblivious to it.

I LOVE working with good architects and engineers. Those are the best projects. Good contractors really help too. We often get comments that the RDPs wish they could move all their projects to our town because we are "so reasonable". When I respond the job is to be reasonable, they jokingly ask me if I could tell some other officials.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jul 3, 2019)

I have problems when architects and engineers stamp a drawing that architects and engineers from a different state designed and never checked to see if it complies with the local codes, local wind load, etc.


----------



## ADAguy (Jul 4, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> I have problems when architects and engineers stamp a drawing that architects and engineers from a different state designed and never checked to see if it complies with the local codes, local wind load, etc.


 Unfortunately "it" happens.


----------



## mark handler (Jul 4, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> I have problems when architects and engineers stamp a drawing that architects and engineers from a different state designed and never checked to see if it complies with the local codes, local wind load, etc.


More and more common.
Especially with Large nationwide mercantile and dining establishment companies.
They have a proto-typical store they want everywhere.
And Features like vestibules, are a waste of space, in mild climates.


----------



## ADAguy (Jul 5, 2019)

Unfortunately those proto's are seen by others and imitated without knowing if they comply with local codes or the ADA, ie: Starbucks lost a class action with regards to their counter heights, 3,00 stores impacted (smiling).


----------



## conarb (Jul 5, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> Unfortunately those proto's are seen by others and imitated without knowing if they comply with local codes or the ADA, ie: Starbucks lost a class action with regards to their counter heights, 3,00 stores impacted (smiling).


You take great delight in harming other people don't you ADAguy?


----------



## tmurray (Jul 5, 2019)

We had that issue with a national pet supply chain. Their counter was long enough to require a section for accessible service. Listening to their designers, they had constructed almost a hundred of these stores with the exact same counter issue all over Canada, but we were the first to catch it. 

That goes to another issue in the industry, reviewers or inspectors who don't even look at something because a RDP has stamped off on it. They appear to have a sense of security that the RDP will be held solely liable, which in Canada, is very unrealistic.


----------



## e hilton (Jul 6, 2019)

conarb said:


> You take great delight in harming other people don't you ADAguy?


Not really.  I work for a company with nation wide presence, and they have a standard design, but they are smart enough to hire a locally registered architect to make sure it passes local code.  And they are reasonable enough to make changes when required.  Required being the key word.  I think we have all probably heard of national chains that think their one-design should be accepted every where just because of who they are.


----------



## conarb (Jul 6, 2019)

e hilton said:


> Not really.  I work for a company with nation wide presence, and they have a standard design, but they are smart enough to hire a locally registered architect to make sure it passes local code.  And they are reasonable enough to make changes when required.  Required being the key word.  I think we have all probably heard of national chains that think their one-design should be accepted every where just because of who they are.



Back, when at least some of us were fighting the government imposed International Code, we were told the reason for it was so  designers could design on a national and eventually worldwide basis, doesn't seem to have worked out.


----------



## tmurray (Jul 8, 2019)

conarb said:


> Back, when at least some of us were fighting the government imposed International Code, we were told the reason for it was so  designers could design on a national and eventually worldwide basis, doesn't seem to have worked out.



The issue comes about because it is not a code that is enacted at a national level. We have similar problems here in Canada. There are benefits in that the codes are similar, so the proto-buildings are about 95% in any given jurisdiction. Local RDPs are the ones who have the experience with the local amendments that will get it across the finish line though.


----------



## ADAguy (Jul 8, 2019)

Harm Starbucks? they are not mom & pop's but it is the Mom & Pops who imitated their noncompliant designs who are ultimately hurt.


----------



## conarb (Jul 8, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> Harm Starbucks? they are not mom & pop's but it is the Mom & Pops who imitated their noncompliant designs who are ultimately hurt.


 I have no love for Starbucks, never been in one and doubt that I'd ever want to go into a coffee shop, but no-one, not even a large corporation deserves to be harmed by a bunch of Marxist's trying to redistribute wealth. Again, everyone, individual or corporation deserves to be treated equally, that means no-one gets special privileges.


----------



## tmurray (Jul 9, 2019)

conarb said:


> I have no love for Starbucks, never been in one and doubt that I'd ever want to go into a coffee shop, but no-one, not even a large corporation deserves to be harmed by a bunch of Marxist's trying to redistribute wealth. Again, everyone, individual or corporation deserves to be treated equally, that means no-one gets special privileges.


All businesses must comply. No one is being treated differently.

Everyone can use the accessible features. No one is being treated differently.

If my store is not accessible, then I AM treating people differently.


----------



## ADAguy (Jul 9, 2019)

Thank you "t"


----------



## conarb (Jul 9, 2019)

tmurray said:


> All businesses must comply. No one is being treated differently.
> 
> Everyone can use the accessible features. No one is being treated differently.
> 
> If my store is not accessible, then I AM treating people differently.



You are forcing others to accommodate the handicapped, that costs money, your job is to enforce minimum health and safety standards, not the Marxist social justice agenda, if a guy wants to build his counters 4' high for tall people that's his business, Frank Lloyd Wright famously build short, narrow doors because he was small, that was between him and his customers, it's none of the building department's business.

There "was" a famous Gardiner Daily 1962 building at UC Berkeley called Tollman Hall, it's now a pile of rubble concrete, UC spent $160 million to build a new building and another $16 million to demolish Tollman Hall, a total waste of taxpayer monies, of course they always cite seismic but all buildings have seismic problems now, here is the real reason:

*



			Building Details
		
Click to expand...

*


> Floors: 8
> 
> Accessible entrances: There are seven (7) entrances/exits in total, three of which are fire exits. On the ground (G) floor, there are three (3) entrances/exits, one of which is wheelchair usable with a compliant door and an automatic opener. The first (1) floor has two main entryways at grade, no automatic openers. The second (2) floor has one main entrance at grade with no automatic openers.
> 
> ...



BTW, here is a picture of the *tunnel through Tollman* that isn't anymore because of the frigging Social Justice Warriors. 

We ought top go through every building department and ferret out the Social Justice Warriors and fire each and every one of the bastards, here is a good article on prejudiced inspectors in New York City:



> This case is especially egregious, and still Hu has faced an uphill battle since 2011 to try to get some semblance of justice.
> 
> Burkart’s colleague even hit Hu with a car in 2011, while Burkart was in the passenger seat. This was shortly after Hu’s first lawsuit against Burkart began.
> 
> ...





¹ https://dac.berkeley.edu/tolman-hall

² https://www.thedailybell.com/all-ar...enforcement-is-too-much-power-for-government/


----------



## jar546 (Jul 10, 2019)

Conarb, your vile peevishness never ceases to amaze me and I'm sure some others.  It must be hell to live with that kind of petulance in your cerebrum all the time.


----------



## e hilton (Jul 10, 2019)

Tiny tyrants ... so true.   

While i agree with you about eliminating SJW ... who is to say they are wrong?   There are lots of people in the world who think being a SJW is the highest calling.


----------



## tmurray (Jul 10, 2019)

conarb said:


> You are forcing others to accommodate the handicapped, that costs money, your job is to enforce minimum health and safety standards, not the Marxist social justice agenda, if a guy wants to build his counters 4' high for tall people that's his business, Frank Lloyd Wright famously build short, narrow doors because he was small, that was between him and his customers, it's none of the building department's business.



Just to be clear, it is not my job to enforce minimum health and safety standards. My job is to enforce codes, by-law, and acts that I am empowered to enforce by democratically elected officials.

True. No public employee should be able to enforce anything that is not a requirement under the law.

This is not what is happening.

ADA is a law that is being enforced.

The people democratically elected an official who created this law. 

The people can democratically elect someone to abolish this law.

The people have not done this. Therefore, the people want ADA compliant buildings.

Who am I, you, or anyone else for that matter, to tell the majority of a country that what they want is wrong?

I think I've told this storey before, but here it is again. My father just retired from running a store. On the subject of accessibility, he does not think that it should be a law, but because "a lot of business owners don't see it as important and those morons should go out of business".

From the outside, you appear to be frustrated with a world that has changed around you and now has a different value structure.


----------



## tmurray (Jul 10, 2019)

e hilton said:


> Tiny tyrants ... so true.
> 
> While i agree with you about eliminating SJW ... who is to say they are wrong?   There are lots of people in the world who think being a SJW is the highest calling.



I completely agree with this statement. I find SJWs do more to alienate their cause from the rest of society than spread awareness or progress their cause.


----------



## conarb (Jul 10, 2019)

Nobody has addressed the article I posted above,*]Even Building Code Enforcement is too much Power for the Government*


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 10, 2019)

I believe most SJW are just tiny tyrant wannabees trying to influence others to their way of thinking or believe. The proper name for them is proselytizers


----------



## conarb (Jul 10, 2019)

That didn't come through right, try this: https://www.thedailybell.com/all-ar...enforcement-is-too-much-power-for-government/


----------



## tmurray (Jul 10, 2019)

conarb said:


> That didn't come through right, try this: https://www.thedailybell.com/all-ar...enforcement-is-too-much-power-for-government/



Because it's sensationalist dribble. 

AS I have repeatedly said, one situation is not indicative of a systematic problem.

Do bad building inspectors exist? Yes. I know some pretty terrible ones myself. I also know bad contractors. Maybe we should make it illegal to be a contractor too.


----------



## ADAguy (Jul 10, 2019)

I am not a "SJW" but unlike you "C", am not so old and bitter as to accept that the times they are a changing. 
Yes there are some bad apples in every barrel. Yes codes, laws and regulations are often written by those who are not concerned with unintended consequences. You feel so strongly, attend the open comment sessions at CBSC or the legislature and take issue.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jul 10, 2019)

Conarb
This is real government abuse of power and hopefully now that they are being challenged the courts will set them straight and reel them in
https://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2019/07/10/government-bullies-n2549777


----------



## Yikes (Oct 2, 2019)

I'm late to this long-running thread.  I got my architect's license at age 28, the youngest in my graduating class to do so (as far as I know).
My first reaction was relief that it was "over", and my second reaction was mild fear. I was aware that I really didn't know that much about architecture, and yet I was just given permission to design and stamp just about every kind of project except bridges and hospitals, etc.  Who else out there had designed the buildings that I already lived, worked and shopped in, without really knowing what they were doing?

That's when I realized a stamp didn't really mean anything except that you knew how to go to school and take tests.  What really counts is your personal sense of professional responsibility: giving it your best, not being afraid to ask questions, knowing when to bring in other experts to help with your limitations, constantly applying "lessons learned" (hopefully from other people's mistakes!), etc., eventually building up to years of technical experience and (hopefully) wisdom that adds value for my clients and safety for the public.

I once read that the average age of the engineers on the Hoover Dam project was 28.  As the dam filled, they started getting minor earthquakes in the area, and they eventually realized it was from the weight of the water bending the earth's crust!  Imagine the sense of personal responsibility if that had ultimately gone wrong - - destruction of the southwest on a scale so much larger than Mulholland's San Fransiquio dam collapse.

So you have to take your profession seriously, especially as it relates to life safety.  I have no problem with plan checkers or other peer reviewers looking over my work, as long as (a) they do it in a timely manner, and (b) they generally know what they are talking about, and (c) they actually review the plans, as opposed to just spitting out boilerplate plan check responses.


----------



## jar546 (Oct 3, 2019)

Yikes said:


> I'm late to this long-running thread.  I got my architect's license at age 28, the youngest in my graduating class to do so (as far as I know).
> My first reaction was relief that it was "over", and my second reaction was mild fear. I was aware that I really didn't know that much about architecture, and yet I was just given permission to design and stamp just about every kind of project except bridges and hospitals, etc.  Who else out there had designed the buildings that I already lived, worked and shopped in, without really knowing what they were doing?
> 
> That's when I realized a stamp didn't really mean anything except that you knew how to go to school and take tests.  What really counts is your personal sense of professional responsibility: giving it your best, not being afraid to ask questions, knowing when to bring in other experts to help with your limitations, constantly applying "lessons learned" (hopefully from other people's mistakes!), etc., eventually building up to years of technical experience and (hopefully) wisdom that adds value for my clients and safety for the public.
> ...



My vote for best post of this thread.  Thank you for sharing.


----------



## e hilton (Oct 3, 2019)

Yikes said:


> So you have to take your profession seriously, especially as it relates to life safety.  I have no problem with plan checkers or other peer reviewers looking over my work, as long as (a) they do it in a timely manner, and (b) they generally know what they are talking about, and (c) they actually review the plans, as opposed to just spitting out boilerplate plan check responses.


I have no problem with oversight ... as long as it is well intended and not just a source of criticism.  And if the overseer is competent, i can accept a lot of corrections.  Thats one of my pet peeves with auditors ... they tell you what you are doing wrong, but they dont know how to do it right.  They apply the rules with no knowledge of why they exist.


----------



## steveray (Oct 3, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> I had one last year that referenced the 2012 Uniform Building Code.



I has one that cited the Standard Building code last month....Don't think we have ever used that in CT...


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 3, 2019)

Just failed three plan reviews of stamped plans from different architects in a row for additions to small commercial buildings that did not give basic information like what codes used, egress plans, occupant load, use, type of construction, site plans, and no information at all about the existing building they are adding too. After adopting the codes 15 years ago I don't understand why I still get this stuff.

This has happened many times before but I expected to stop by now. I can just ask for what I mentioned what is missing above but I know there will be still things missing, So I have made a 6 page letter a while ago (upgrading as codes change) that I have used many times that asks for just about everything I can think of to try to get these plans through the review.


----------



## tmurray (Oct 3, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> Just failed three plan reviews of stamped plans from different architects in a row for additions to small commercial buildings that did not give basic information like what codes used, egress plans, occupant load, use, type of construction, site plans, and no information at all about the existing building they are adding too. After adopting the codes 15 years ago I don't understand why I still get this stuff.
> 
> This has happened many times before but I expected to stop by now. I can just ask for what I mentioned what is missing above but I know there will be still things missing, So I have made a 6 page letter a while ago (upgrading as codes change) that I have used many times that asks for just about everything I can think of to try to get these plans through the review.



We had similar feelings. The only conclusion we could come to is that they keep doing this because it works in a lot of places. Someone sees a stamp then signs a permit and off they go.


----------



## my250r11 (Oct 3, 2019)

tmurray said:


> Someone sees a stamp then signs a permit and off they go.


----------



## my250r11 (Oct 3, 2019)

Been giving thought to doing a letter as well!!!


----------



## e hilton (Oct 3, 2019)

Rather than a letter, what about passing out a sample cover page for the drawing set?


----------



## jar546 (Oct 3, 2019)

In most states, as an RDP, are you allowed to:

Have a general contractor come to you with a hand drawn plan on letter size that the contractor themselves drew and stamp it?


----------



## Yikes (Oct 3, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> So I have made a 6 page letter a while ago (upgrading as codes change) that I have used many times that asks for just about everything I can think of to try to get these plans through the review.


LA Building and Safety has standard correction lists for typical projects, such as multifamily housing.  Since there are so many plan checkers that check all boxes without even looking at the plans, we offer our clients a service where we print out their correction list (available on their website) and "pre-plancheck" it ourselves, writing our responses as to where the "corrections" can already be found on the plans.  We turn this in with the initial plan check, effectively already doing the plan checkers work for them (with the exception of structural reviews).


----------



## Yikes (Oct 3, 2019)

jar546 said:


> In most states, as an RDP, are you allowed to:
> 
> Have a general contractor come to you with a hand drawn plan on letter size that the contractor themselves drew and stamp it?



Off-topic, it reminds me of a story when I was in 3rd year of architecture school, decades ago.  A contractor paid me to prepare plans for a simple home addition - - the kind that (in the days before energy calcs and seismic analysis) could be easily reviewed and approved over the counter.  I wanted to impress everyone with my drawing skills so I prepared a fully detailed set of 24" x 36"  plans.

The county of LA plan checker told me it would be a minimum 30 day plan check, which would've screwed up the owner's schedule.  I reported this to the contractor, who summoned me back to his office.  Reviewing the plans, he said that my plans looked "too good" and were causing the county to make too big of a deal for such a simple remodel.  He had me redraw just the basics (no details), by hand, not really to scale, on a few pieces of yellow 8.5" x 11" notepad paper.  Then he told me to go back on another day, see a different plan checker, and pull these sketchy plans out of my student backpack, acting as if I was the son of the homeowner and had no clue what to do next.  He said they would approve it quick, just to get rid of me.

It worked.  The new plan checker looked at it, explained to me that they had a standard set of [Type V] details for homeowners; he stapled it to my plan, and I was out of there in less than an hour.


----------



## e hilton (Oct 3, 2019)

jar546 said:


> In most states, as an RDP, are you allowed to:
> 
> Have a general contractor come to you with a hand drawn plan on letter size that the contractor themselves drew and stamp it?


Why not?   The aor stamp says you certify the design meets all codes, it doesn’t certify you drew it.  As long as all the information is clearly and correctly shown.


----------



## tmurray (Oct 4, 2019)

jar546 said:


> In most states, as an RDP, are you allowed to:
> 
> Have a general contractor come to you with a hand drawn plan on letter size that the contractor themselves drew and stamp it?


That happens here with one engineer in particular. Most of the time, the contractors that sketch up what he is stamping are very reputable and want it done their way, rather than value engineering it.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 4, 2019)

mark handler said:


> Having worked in large and small Architectural Offices for over thirty years, I can tell you that most of the actual working drawings are done by *NON-Licensed individuals.  *They  usually do the best they can but do not have the expertise a "RDP" may have. Unless there is an in-house review drawings go out, stamped, in a haphazard condition.
> There is a time restraint. Every minute you spend on that project, cost the firm money. Getting it submitted gets them the money to may payroll , "We will fix it later, when there is more time".
> Some companies rely on the governmental plan checker to do the back check.
> Plan checking is crucial.



I will once again say "Plan checking is crucial". Every day I get Sealed and Signed drawings by State licensed design *"professionals" *that do not come close in meeting the code.

We (including other BOs in the area) have a 85+ engineer that will stamp anything you bring him, including Blank sheets inserted into sets.

Had an architect the other day that complained that I was being to mean by requiring the plans show code conformance. His attitude was give me a permit and let them figure it out in the field.

*2016 CBC 107.2.1 Information on construction documents*
Construction documents shall be dimensioned and drawn upon suitable material. Electronic media documents are permitted to be submitted when approved by the building official. *Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this code and relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, as determined by the building official.*


----------



## classicT (Oct 4, 2019)

e hilton said:


> Why not?   The aor stamp says you certify the design meets all codes, it doesn’t certify you drew it.  As long as all the information is clearly and correctly shown.


Washington State is a bit different. Design professionals are required to prepare or have reasonable charge over those who prepare the plans.

*RCW 18.08.370 (ARCHITECTS)*
*Issuance of certificates of registration—Seal, use.*
(1) The director shall issue a certificate of registration to any applicant who has, to the satisfaction of the board, met all the requirements for registration upon payment of the registration fee as provided in this chapter. All certificates of registration shall show the full name of the registrant, have the registration number, and shall be signed by the chair of the board and by the director. The issuance of a certificate of registration by the director is prima facie evidence that the person named therein is entitled to all the rights and privileges of a registered architect.
(2) Each registrant shall obtain a seal of the design authorized by the board bearing the architect's name, registration number, the legend "Registered Architect," and the name of this state. All technical submissions prepared by an architect and filed with public authorities must be sealed and signed by the architect. It is unlawful to seal and sign a document after a registrant's certificate of registration or authorization has expired, been revoked, or is suspended.
(3) An architect may seal and sign technical submissions under the following conditions:
(a) An architect may seal and sign technical submissions that are: Prepared by the architect; prepared by the architect's regularly employed subordinates; prepared in part by an individual or firm under a direct subcontract with the architect; or prepared in collaboration with an architect who is licensed in a jurisdiction recognized by the board, provided there is a contractual agreement between the architects.
(b) An architect may seal and sign technical submissions based on prototypical documents provided: The architect obtains written permission from the architect who prepared or sealed the prototypical documents, and from the legal owner to adapt the prototypical documents; the architect thoroughly analyzes the prototypical documents, makes necessary revisions, and adds all required elements and design information, including the design services of engineering consultants, if warranted, so that the prototypical documents become suitable complete technical submissions, in compliance with applicable codes, regulations, and site-specific requirements.
(c) An architect who seals and signs the technical submissions under this subsection (3) is responsible to the same extent as if the technical submissions were prepared by the architect.
​*RCW 18.43.070 (ENGINEERS)*
*Certificates and seals.*
The board shall issue a certificate of registration upon payment of a registration fee as provided for in this chapter, to any applicant who, in the opinion of the board, has satisfactorily met all the requirements of this chapter. In case of a registered engineer, the certificate shall authorize the practice of "professional engineering" and specify the branch or branches in which specialized, and in case of a registered land surveyor, the certificate shall authorize the practice of "land surveying."

In case of engineer-in-training, the certificate shall state that the applicant has successfully passed the examination in fundamental engineering subjects required by the board and has been enrolled as an "engineer-in-training." In case of land-surveyor-in-training, the certificate shall state that the applicant has successfully passed the examination in fundamental surveying subjects required by the board and has been enrolled as a "land-surveyor-in-training." All certificates of registration shall show the full name of the registrant, shall have a serial number, and shall be signed by the chair and the secretary of the board and by the director.

The issuance of a certificate of registration by the board shall be prima facie evidence that the person named therein is entitled to all the rights and privileges of a registered professional engineer or a registered land surveyor, while the said certificate remains unrevoked and unexpired.

Each registrant hereunder shall upon registration obtain a seal of the design authorized by the board, bearing the registrant's name and the legend "registered professional engineer" or "registered land surveyor." Plans, specifications, plats, and reports prepared by the registrant shall be signed, dated, and stamped with said seal or facsimile thereof. Such signature and stamping shall constitute a certification by the registrant that the same was prepared by or under his or her direct supervision and that to his or her knowledge and belief the same was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the statute. It shall be unlawful for anyone to stamp or seal any document with said seal or facsimile thereof after the certificate of registrant named thereon has expired or been revoked, unless said certificate shall have been renewed or reissued.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 4, 2019)

Back in the UBC days a local Architect complained about the time frame for our plan reviews and the BO gave him the option to send it to a third party for an expedited review at his expense.
The third party plans examiner requested the "minimum critical radiant flux" rating of his finished plain concrete floor.  He never complained about our plan reviews after that experience.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 4, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> Back in the UBC days a local Architect complained about the time frame for our plan reviews and the BO gave him the option to send it to a third party for an expedited review at his expense.
> The third party plans examiner requested the "minimum critical radiant flux" rating of his finished plain concrete floor.  He never complained about our plan reviews after that experience.


Karma is a Bit*h


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 7, 2019)

TheCommish said:


> You are free to do so.
> Also, I have a list of do the things to cover if you would like to have a copy.



How do I get one?


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 7, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> About 10 years ago a senior man came in on a cane who is an certified architect came  and asked what I was reading. I said "the International Building Code".
> He said "let me see it, I never saw one".
> 
> I hope he is retired by now.



I use a cane but it wasn't me!


----------



## TheCommish (Oct 8, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> How do I get one?


citations include mass amendments, and do not  align with the 2015 IBC
http://www.townofcharlton.net/Docum...rcial-Application-with-Supplemental-Pages-PDF


----------



## mark handler (Oct 8, 2019)

Mark K said:


> I recognize that the favorite sport of plan checkers and inspectors is to bash architects and engineers.  Please note that architects and engineers could match you one for one with examples of plan checkers and inspectors that got it wrong.
> 
> I suggest that we should focus on the  question of whether the submission complies with the adopted regulations.


Just a comment, in So. CA, most Plan Checkers and BO's ARE Architects and Engineers.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Oct 8, 2019)

"In most states, as an RDP, are you allowed to:
Have a general contractor come to you with a hand drawn plan on letter size that the contractor themselves drew and stamp it?"

Not in Virginia

18VAC10-20-760. Use of Seal.
A. Affixing of a professional seal, signature, and date shall indicate that the professional has exercised direct control and personal supervision over the work to which it is affixed. Affixing of the seal, signature, and date also indicates the professional's acceptance of responsibility for the work shown thereon.

1. No professional shall affix a seal, signature, and date or certification to a plan, plat, document, sketch, or other work constituting the practice of the professions regulated that has been prepared by an unlicensed or uncertified person unless such work was performed under the direct control and personal supervision of the professional while the unlicensed or uncertified person was an employee of the same firm as the professional or was under written contract to the same firm that employs the professional.


----------



## classicT (Oct 8, 2019)

Ty J. said:


> Washington State is a bit different. Design professionals are required to prepare or have reasonable charge over those who prepare the plans.
> 
> *RCW 18.08.370 (ARCHITECTS)*
> *Issuance of certificates of registration—Seal, use.*
> ...





Paul Sweet said:


> "In most states, as an RDP, are you allowed to:
> Have a general contractor come to you with a hand drawn plan on letter size that the contractor themselves drew and stamp it?"
> 
> Not in Virginia
> ...



I am willing to bet that most states have administrative codes (laws) that state similar. It is up to each BO on how to enforce, but the rules are in place and can be enforced.


----------



## Rick18071 (Oct 8, 2019)

So generic plans (McDonald's, Starbucks, Target) made by a architect from another state and only stamped by a local state  RDP cannot be used?


----------



## classicT (Oct 8, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> So generic plans (McDonald's, Starbucks, Target) made by a architect from another state and only stamped by a local state  RDP cannot be used?


See the text in red below....re-posting a limited portion of RCW 18.08.370

*RCW 18.08.370 (ARCHITECTS)*
*Issuance of certificates of registration—Seal, use.*
(3) An architect may seal and sign technical submissions under the following conditions:
(a) An architect may seal and sign technical submissions that are: Prepared by the architect; prepared by the architect's regularly employed subordinates; prepared in part by an individual or firm under a direct subcontract with the architect; or prepared in collaboration with an architect who is licensed in a jurisdiction recognized by the board, provided there is a contractual agreement between the architects.​


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 8, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> So generic plans (McDonald's, Starbucks, Target) made by a architect from another state and only stamped by a local state RDP cannot be used?


We have a local engineer who is licensed in 47 states. I have seen many Montana licensed stamped drawings by RDP's who I have ever been to this state. 
The RDP does not need to be a local


----------



## tmurray (Oct 8, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> We have a local engineer who is licensed in 47 states. I have seen many Montana licensed stamped drawings by RDP's who I have ever been to this state.
> The RDP does not need to be a local


Exactly.

I had something submitted that was stamped in another province. I called the local engineering society to see if they had some sort of reciprocal agreement. They said they did not, but since the person was licenced in that province, they just needed to submit an application and pay the dues and they would get them their stamp that day. I decided it's not my job to drive membership for them and accepted the engineer's design with the other province's stamp on it.


----------



## my250r11 (Oct 9, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> So generic plans (McDonald's, Starbucks, Target) made by a architect from another state and only stamped by a local state RDP cannot be used?



Our state law requires a state licensed engineer/architect. So we make sure it does before we except them, but we do not go searching for contracts. If they have the seal that is what matters, the stamper is the responsible party once they put their stamp on it. Hopefully they have contracts and look thru them for compliance before they stamp them because if something does happen, goes wrong or questions asked it is them who is responsible.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 9, 2019)

If they don't and issues come up their E & O carrier may refuse their claim.


----------



## Mark K (Oct 10, 2019)

If a building department is tempted to go beyond verifying that the design professionals license is current they should check with the state licensing board.  It is not within the building departments authority to decide if the design professional was plan stamping or engaging in other improper licensing activity.  If there is a concern that an individual  is violating the state licensing laws the building department can always refer the concern to the state licensing board.


----------



## VillageInspector (Oct 22, 2019)

As a plan reviewer/building inspector the first thing I do is verify with the state web site that the RDPs license is current and if it isn't I return everything along with a cover letter and copy of expired license. Can't tell you how many embarrassed RDPs I've had in almost twenty years.


----------

