# Any supervision over local California building departments



## Simonsays (Nov 10, 2010)

Help,

Is there any state agency charged with supervision over local California building departments? From an associate on the west coast:

     "The majority of time, field inspectors fail to issue correction notices. It is often difficult to get them to

      write correction notices. They are usually verbal communications with the G.C. who in turn calls us to step in and

      resolve the issue. We typically request something in writing from the inspector but we are only successful in

      getting a written notice about 50% of the time."

Here in Ohio, the building inspector is supposed to report to the Building Official about any discrepancies found when comparing construction against the approved documents and then the Building Official contacts the responsible party. The field inspector isn't licenced to practice either engineering or architecture and isn't charged with directing anybody to perform work, only to report on deficiencies to his boss and leave a copy of their observations at the jobsite.

Maybe the California Building Code's Administration Chapter allows the behavior cited above; I don't know as I don't have a copy.


----------



## Jobsaver (Nov 10, 2010)

Simonsays: What is the source of the quotation you are referencing? The statement sounds too general in scope to have validity.


----------



## Mark K (Nov 10, 2010)

In California the state imposes the basic building code and each local jurisdiction is expected to enforce it.  There is no monitoring or supervision of the local jurisdiction by the state.  In the case of residential occupancies the Department of Housing and Community Development can step in and enforce the building code for residential occupancies if they were motivated but they do not supervise the local building departments.


----------



## mark handler (Nov 10, 2010)

Simonsays said:
			
		

> Help, I don't know as I don't have a copy.


http://ftp.resource.org/codes.gov/


----------



## FyrBldgGuy (Nov 11, 2010)

The requirement to write reports vs. verbal direction is often left up to the inspector.  In regards to Ohio the following is within the Ohio Building Code.

"109.7 Inspections, report of violations. When an inspector from the department having jurisdiction finds that any work in connection with the location, erection, construction, repair, alteration, moving, or equipment of a building is contrary to the approved construction documents for the same and the rules of the board, and the owner refuses to, or does not bring such work or equipment into conformity with said construction documents or the rules of the board, the inspector shall make a written report of his finding to the building official; the written report shall state where and in what respect the work or equipment does not conform to the approved plans and the rules of the board, and shall contain such other information as is required by the building official or which is thought advisable by the inspector."

This is a "when" statement.  It does not make a mandatory requirement for all correction orders to be written.

And by the way, inspection is not the practice of engineering or architecture.

Again from the Ohio Code:

"2.3 Building inspector. The building department shall have in its employ or under contract at least one person holding a certification as a building inspector and designated to determine compliance with approved construction documents in accordance with section 109.7 and the rules of the board;"


----------



## Jobsaver (Nov 11, 2010)

In my ahj, making an informal or semi-formal heads up call on an issue is considered a courtesy, whereas a more formal written _Addition & Correction Notice _serves as a formal warning and effectively, a citation triggering a reinspect fee.

I do believe an inspector and/or building dept. ought to provide a written notice to the contractor or his assigns, on request and in a timely manner.


----------



## Simonsays (Nov 15, 2010)

Thank you for your opinions.

I find it difficult to believe that there is little recourse when an inspector both regularly and verbally requires beyond what is shown on the approved documents. I know inspection is not the practice of engineering or architecture; that is what my initial post stated.


----------



## Mark K (Nov 15, 2010)

Actually performing of inspections is within the practice of civiel engineering.  Reference the second paragraph of Section 1704.1 of the 2009 IBC that addresses inspections not provided by the building department.  The reality is that many engineers do not regularly provide this service either because they may not have the expertise or because of economic issues.

The problem of inspectors exceeding their authority is a cronic problem in some jurisdictions and will continue untill there is pushback.  I recognize that there will be differences of opinion but the problem is more widespread.  It is hoped that when inspectors understand that there are some limits on their authority that they will modify their behavior but there are some individuals who will deny that there is a problem.


----------

