Shuma lama ding sham?

Thank goodness Otis Day never had to ask Deltas for a plan check.

The Town of Mammoth Lakes is ruffling some feathers in the building community with its use of outside plan checker firm Shums Coda Associates, based out of Pleasanton, Calif. Several design professionals have complained about what they argue are needlessly stringent—and sometimes incorrect—lists of plan corrections. These architects, engineers, and designers say the Town’s use of Shums Coda is holding up projects and even chasing away builders.

For those unfamiliar with the plan check process, any builder wishing to make changes to a structure has to acquire a building permit, and any new construction, whether a window, deck, or entirely new building, must meet both state and local building codes.

Licensed engineer Kathy Cage explained that builders rely on an architect or engineer to create a set of plans and submit those plans to the Town. The Town then either uses its in-house plan checker, Tom Molloy, or sends the plans out to one of its five approved outside plan checkers. Plan checkers return plans with a list of corrections, and architects or engineers must revise plans accordingly. Only once those plans are fully approved can builders pull a building permit for a project.

Shums Coda is a relatively new addition to the Town’s list of outside plan checkers. According to Town Manager Dan Holler, the Town hired the firm after the Town began falling behind in its plan check services in the spring of 2014.

“Our goal for turnaround time on the first plan check is 30 days,” he said. “We were seeing plans four to six weeks beyond that time frame and were receiving complaints from builders. To address this we reached out to a few additional firms to assist with plan checking.”

Holler was familiar with Shums Coda based upon his past experience as a building official. The Town added it to the roster. The first set of plans went to Shums Coda in June of 2014; since then, 60 out of 120 outside plan checks have gone to the firm, while 73 plan checks have remained in-house.

The Town also recently changed its policy regarding the use of outside plan checkers. Formerly, a builder could choose and pay for the use of an approved outside plan checker, and the Town would discount its fees to cover the cost of the outside plan check to the customer. A builder could also choose to send plans to Tom Molloy.

“As we fell behind in plan check services, builders were not using the outside checkers, in part due to the added expense,” said Holler. “The shift was made to use the outside plan checkers to manage our work flow.”

Now builders pay the same fee for in-house or outside plan checkers to help cover the cost when the Town employs an outside plan checker to lighten its own workload. The fees are based on project valuation. The amount the Town pays firms is dependent on the workload.

Holler argued that “Having a builder or architect select their own checker and pay for it has the appearance of being unethical. It allows an applicant to pay an extra fee to choose a plan reviewer whom they believe will give them an easier plan review, or may place pressure on the reviewer to keep clients by how the review is done.”

However, why the Town would approve and employ any outside plan checker that would give “easier” plan reviews remained unclear.

Holler did say that the Town is currently in the process of choosing third party consultants to update its list, eventually creating a pool of 6-10 outside firms that may also provide back-up inspection services. That process should be completed in the next month.

So why do some architects and engineers have a bone to pick with Shums Coda in particular? Complaints from those who have had their plans sent to the firm focused on incorrect information in Shums Coda plan check reviews.

For instance, said Kathy Cage, one of her plans for a two-story deck rebuild came back with nine corrections, one of them incorrect. In this case, Shums Coda maintained that lateral bracing of the deck is required, and that the architect must address the lateral loading and the method of resistance.

Cage disagreed, noting that lateral bracing is not required per CBC Section 3405.31 Exception 1. She took this information to Shums Coda, but said she was rebuffed. Cage said she ultimately had to take the matter to the Town’s Building Official, Steve Stokes, who agreed with her.

“All this took quite a lot of my time to resolve for these clients, who ended up having to pay me to do it … for a simple deck rebuild,” Cage said.

Architect Bruce Woodward agreed that Shums Coda has sent back incorrect corrections to his own plans. He noted that a plan to put an elevator in at the Mammoth Mountain Inn came back with comments “wanting to know the dimensions of the walk in cooler.”

Needless to say, there was no walk in cooler.

Another comment for a different project “asked me to show the access from the sidewalk to the property,” Woodward said. “There was no sidewalk.”

Other design professionals asserted that Shums Coda is being too strict in its plan reviews.

“These guys are maniacal with the amount of content they want to write us up on,” asserted another design professional who wished to remain anonymous. “It takes us 60 percent more time to respond to their plan checks than normal.”

This design professional said that after going through the plan check process with Shums Coda, three separate clients said they would no longer build in Mammoth because of the firm.

One client said the design required by Shums Coda for a home deck project was more suited for a commercial deck, and that given the numerous new requirements, the project cost would rise from $15,000 to $37,000. This particular client dropped the deck project as a result.

Another client’s remodel/addition project came back with 106 comments—and was addressed to Bruce Woodward, who was not the plan creator.

Woodward said he’d simply given up working on smaller projects, given how costly they’ve become with the lengthy plan check process through Shums Coda. “They don’t know the area, and they’re not getting any better at knowing the area,” he said.

But Shums Coda Associates Marketing Manager Terry Knox said in an interview with The Sheet this week that the firm is “not trying to over-regulate … We’re not the bad guys here.”

Knox said he used to be a contractor, and “I always thought I knew more than the building department.” Now, working from the other side, he has a new perspective on both state and local codes.

“Our job is not an easy one, and we will never make 100 percent of the public happy in what we must enforce,” he said. “Nor is this is a personal attack on anyone.  We are mandated by law, FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency], and the Insurance Industry to perform the duties we do.”

Knox noted that It takes years of training to become a Building Inspector and/or Plan Reviewer, as both must know the requirements of the Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, Energy, and Accessibility Codes, snow loads, soil conditions, seismic zones, materials, and methods of construction.

Shums Coda Plan Reviewers attend continuing education in order to maintain their International Certifications, which must be recertified every three years.

Knox pointed out that while some codes might be unpopular with builders, the codes are there for a reason: “to provide minimum requirements to safeguard the public safety, health and general welfare.”

What makes Shums Coda’s job more complicated is that, “While most states or localities have adopted some [national] model code version, not all have adopted the most current version, which results in a patchwork of codes,” he said. “Some jurisdictions do not make it a priority to enforce codes, or don’t have the resources to do so.”

All of this adds up to abundant codes, and complex combinations of codes. Forcing builders to abide by these codes, Knox said, “More often than we like, Building Departments and firms like Shums Coda Associates deal with angry people.”

But if local authorities do not adopt and enforce current codes, he said, “They are allowing construction of buildings that do not meet the current consensus on minimum public health and safety.”

For example, FEMA has noticed some local authorities are avoiding seismic provisions. According to Knox, FEMA officials warn that new structures in communities that have not adopted the latest code editions with seismic safety provisions will “‘probably not provide the current minimum level of protection from earthquake hazards,’” Knox said.

“Failure to adopt and enforce current codes puts a jurisdiction at a competitive disadvantage,” he argued. “Codes are not arbitrary regulation. Codes uphold a democratically derived, minimum level of quality and of public health and safety that a new building should not fall below.

As for accusations that Shums Coda appears to be more familiar plan checking commercial rather than residential projects, Knox alluded to Shums Coda’s background in Butte County, where “we do backyard decks all the way up to hay barns.”

What to do?

Woodward argued that far from being unethical, allowing builders to select an approved outside plan checker was helpful to building in the Town. He alluded to a series of cabins at Tamarack he designed: “I dealt with the same plan checker … it went smoother; it worked better, because he knows the property,” he said.

The same went for Mammoth Mountain Inn projects, which formerly went through Tom Molloy at the Town.

Cage, Woodward, and others alluded to a case in Mono County where design professionals expressed frustration about the County’s approved outside plan checker.

Mono County Building Official Tom Perry explained that the County had contracted with a firm called West Coast Code Consultants, but that the firm “seemed to be using the most stringent standards for commercial building … The nature of the comments received [from architects and engineers] were that they [the corrections] were over the top.”

The County discontinued use of the firm last year after two years.

Design professionals wondered why, given similar complaints about Shums Coda, Mammoth hasn’t yet dropped that firm.

Cage speculated that Shums Coda might offer the cheapest plan review rates, while Woodward speculated that the Town might be using the firm to offload its smaller (less valuable) projects.

Holler countered that “Selection [of outside plan checker firms] is not based on cost to my knowledge,” and that “we don’t look at value as a measure on sending out work.”

Whatever the reason for the Town’s use of Shums Coda, Woodward maintained there is a contradiction in the Town’s use of an outside plan checker that might be discouraging business, given the Town’s stated goal of becoming developer ready.

But Holler said the Town does not plan to change its use of Shums Coda, nor change the new outside plan checker selection system.

“While we have received some complaints, they have generally came from the same few firms or individuals and the overall response has been positive, on both the quality of the review and the turnaround time,” Holler said of the firm. “… There have been no valid complaints about plan review comments that our Building Official is aware of.”

Woodward and several other local design professionals disagreed. At the very least, he argued that design professionals choosing outside plan checkers was not unethical. He alluded to Placer County as one example of an area that allows architects and engineers to select outside plan checkers from a list of 14.

“It doesn’t seem to be an ethical problem with them,” he said.