Attachment 6 - Conceptual Servicing Drawing
A civil engineering drawing outlining the proposed water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage connections for the site.
From: Stephen Patterson To: Dawn Miles; Kim Anema; Leanne Taylor; Sarah Jones Subject: FW: 12 Vickery 3rd party report Date: July 24, 2023 8:16:32 AM Attachments: image001.png; image002.png; image003.png; image004.png; image005.png; May 14_23 Review.pdf Importance: High
From: anna.becker@ccpurchasing.com anna.becker@ccpurchasing.com Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2023 7:00 PM To: Stephen Patterson spatterson@viewroyal.ca Cc: 'Robert Gutierrez' robert@biccprofessionals.com; Leanne Taylor ltaylor@viewroyal.ca; Don Brown dbrown@viewroyal.ca; Sid Tobias mayortobias@viewroyal.ca Subject: RE: 12 Vickery 3rd party report Importance: High
Hello Stephen,
Thank you for the UNISOL Engineering Ltd. (UNISOL) review report.
It took me a while to figure out what was wrong with UNISOL’s review report (Review): the Review does not distinguish between John and I (the Owners) versus John the Builder. We (the Owners) asked for the Town of View Royal (Town) to get involved after we could not get the Engineer on Record (EOR) to understand that the basement 6x6 posts were failing at the site of Building Permit #2845. We asked for the second opinion when the EOR’s March 14, 2023 “Framing Review” had no observations or instructions regarding the augmented posts in the basement. We (the Owners) thought when buepoint consulting ltd. (buepoint) requested to meet onsite on March 14, 2023, that the EOR was finally going to come to the job site to discuss the failing posts based on my January 25, 2023 email to the EOR: instead it was another unrequested “Framing Review”. As noted in detail in point # 4. below under John’s qualifications, the Owners/Builder never requested a Framing Review from the EOR: the Builder did agree to a Preliminary Framing Review.
When I first read the Review, I was taken back by the focus of the UNISOL Review (Review) as it centres around John’s qualifications and construction of the build versus the safety concern that we, the Owners, brought to the attention of the Town and was the purpose of this Review: i.e. “opinion on the structural engineering details and design for a new residence at 12 Vickery Rd, Victoria, BC.” That is, the focus of this Review was to determine whether the design was correct as five (5) of the 6x6 basement posts were failing and needed to be augmented: it was NOT a framing inspection, an inspection of any other construction work, or about John’s qualifications.
I would like to set the record straight in response to UNISOL’s defamation of character of John before I proceed to our responses to the Review. I am responding to UNISOL’s libel statements regarding John’s qualifications because during your phone conversation on July 14th with John, you stated he was not qualified as he is not a Journeyman Carpenter based on the information you read in the Review. Firstly, John’s qualifications should never have been part of this Review. Any observations and directives about construction are to be dealt through reviews conducted by the EOR and through inspections by the Town’s Building Inspection, it should NOT be part of a design review. Given your condescending comments about John’s qualifications as a Builder on the phone, following is some background information about who John is and his qualifications.
- I’ve known John for 35 years, during this time, I’ve learned he is a caring, loving individual who sees the world in black and white. John has had to learn how to deal with others who see the world in shades of gray: including myself. I will admit it is not easy living with a person who sees the world in black and white and has eidetic memory but I want you to know, he would be the first person to admit if he made a mistake and will endeavour to correct the mistake. For example, when buepoint identified that John (the Builder) put one (1) of the LVL in the