Attachment # 4 - RE: 12 Vickery 3rd party report rebuttal

By questioning John’s qualifications as a carpenter, are you also stating that the building inspector who uncondemned and issued the Occupancy Permit for 12 Vickery Road after John completed the renovations was also unqualified?

John is familiar with working on construction sites and knows how projects are managed as he ran his own business. He has never said he was a Journeyman Carpenter but that doesn’t mean he isn’t qualified to build his own house as he has passed the Owner Builder Exam and completed additions and renovations to the three (3) houses: all received their Occupancy Permit.

3. Point 5) under section 4.0 Conclusions, UNISOL’s understanding is incorrect as the Owners have not had “a number of engineers attend this project.” Basically, UNISOL is either not listening and putting words into the mouths of the Owner, or UNISOL could be purposedly misinterpreting what was discussed (the Owners hope this is not the case).

Which leads to the statement about they “have also been privy to another engineer’s experience of having to educate this owner, on another nearby project, in simple methods of achieving the required specifications.”

Other than making an unprofessional and unnecessary statement, that can be viewed as defamation of character (libel), what is the purpose of this statement? How are the Owners to respond to this false accusation? Also, how does this fit into the purpose of this Review: “opinion on the structural engineering details and design for a new residence at 12 Vickery Rd, Victoria, BC.”

Rather than spending time interviewing others about the Builder’s workmanship while working on a design review, I would have expected more time spent on determining alternatives should the Grade of fir not been the cause of the failing and checking basement 6x6 posts and identifying the probability of each alternative in solving the issue. Or if UNISOL viewed providing alternatives was not their responsibility in this Review, they should have just left it as “We did not, at time of reviews, support or deny the issues. That should be resolved with the EOR.” Although, their response does beg the question, what was the purpose of the Review, if they do not support or deny the issues? By stating, “The basement posts are failing and checking has occurred in many of the posts since construction.”, are they not supporting the issue?

In response for the Builder requiring supervision: Cambridge University Press defines supervising as “to watch a person or activity to make certain that everything is done correctly, safely, etc.” If this is the case, shouldn’t the engineer have been onsite for each task they are supervising? As an engineer is not going to do that, typically on a construction site, they have a site superintendent/supervisor. This individual, then discusses any problems (i.e., drawing details that are unclear or contradicting another directive) with the Consultant (as defined in the CCDC 2 2020 Stipulated Price Contract) or the Owner. For construction work on 12 Vickery Road, the Site Superintendent and the Owner is John.

If the review was about how the construction work was being completed, perhaps consistency on the directives being provided by the EOR, project engineer, EIT or the building inspector would be helpful. As each individual has different education and experience, their directives differ and the builder (i.e. general contractor or owner/builder) is expected to try to interpret the directives or in some cases decide which directive is correct; however, on occasion, the builder gets directives from the engineer that completely contradicts the building inspector’s directive or the previous engineer’s directive; resulting in the builder trying to determine which directive they are to follow.

My question is whose directive takes precedence? Will the engineer directives take precedence over the building inspector’s or vice versa? When such a dilemma occurs, John, the Builder, asks questions to the engineer and to the building inspector. However, it appears that the Builder asking questions is being interpreted as “having to educate this owner…in simple methods of achieving the required specifications.” Perhaps, if the engineer and the building inspector was on the same page on how a task is to be completed, it would make the Builder’s work easier and less time consuming trying to deal with two “bosses”.

I ask whose directive takes precedence as the builder must take directives from the engineer and from the building inspector to obtain the Occupancy Permit.

If the engineer does not sign off on the Schedule B, then an occupancy permit will not be issued as noted in the Town of View Royal’s Bylaw # 786, Section 22.2:

“22.2 An occupancy permit shall not be issued unless:

22.2.1 all letters of assurance have been submitted when required in accordance with Sections 9.1.11, 10.1.11, 10.2.5, 14. 14.2 and 18.1 of this bylaw.

22.2.2 all aspects of the work requiring inspection and an acceptance pursuant to Section 20.4 of this bylaw have been inspected and accepted or the inspection and acceptance are not required in accordance with Section 20..6 of this bylaw”

In our situation, the EOR is stating he will not sign the letters of assurance until the deficiencies are addressed; We have stated numerous times that the building is unsafe and therefore, the Builder cannot continue to work on the inside of the building (i.e. the “deficiencies”. I use the quote marks, because some of the tasks that were identified under observations are not deficiencies as the Owners/Builder never asked for a Framing Review and the Builder identified these items as areas he had not gotten to during the Preliminary Framing Review) until the basement 6x6 posts safety concern is addressed. Having a second opinion was to alleviate the safety concern; however, the Review does not provide supporting evidence on how UNISOL determined that the “engineering drawings are adequate for this structure” and “that member sizes appear adequate”. Without supporting evidence, the conclusions are beliefs of the reviewer.

While we were waiting for this Review, the Builder has been working on enclosing the building envelope in preparation for the rainy season. We were shocked when received your email saying “After reviewing Thor’s May 13th,, 2023 report we cannot perform anymore inspections until all deficiencies listed under section 3.0 have been addressed”. Why would you cancel the rain-screen inspection, on the day of the inspection, when it does not pertain to work inside the building?

Also we asked for the Town’s assistance. Based on your July 14th phone conversation with John, you are penalizing us (the Owners) for the “deficiencies” that are listed in the preliminary framing review while we are still concerned about the safety concern: i.e., the failing and checking basement beams that have not been addressed by the Review. Does this make sense?

4. I also want to set the record straight regarding Framing Reviews: John and I have never asked for a Framing Review to be conducted by the EOR as the work was not ready. Only after getting numerous emails and calls from buepoint asking if we were ready for a framing review, the Builder agreed to a preliminary review. If you look at the 1st Framing Review dated October 31, 2022, you will see it states, “Prelim Framing”. The notes under Observations, are areas that the Builder highlighted during the walkthrough as areas he had not completed yet. The Instructions are items that require action. As buepoint noted they still needed to provide advice on six (6) items, there was a follow-up “Prelim Framing” Review dated November 16, 2022, with additional instructions. Given some confusing instructions, John contacted buepoint to clarify and suggested a meeting at buepoint office; however, the Engineer in Training (EIT) asked to have the meeting onsite. The purpose of the November 29th meeting was to discuss the two (2) requests for clarification John had: 1. LVL and 2. front entrance; however, the EIT wasn’t able to address these requests for clarification, and instead the EIT took the onsite meeting as an opportunity to conduct another Framing Review…again not asked by John or myself. This time, the Type of Review, was mistitled “Framing”.

Rebuttal to UNISOL's Review

In response to UNISOL’s REVIEW OF ENGINEERING DETAILS SPECIFIED FOR NEW STRUCTURE AT 12 VICKERY ROAD, VICTORIA, BC, dated May 13, 2023, section 3.0 Items of Concern, following is our rebuttal:

Response to section 4.0 Conclusion:

1. Point 3), as UNISOL’s Review was not an inspection of the construction work, their level of comfort was irrelevant: the purpose of this Review is to confirm the details and design are correct for the structure, especially as it pertains to the failing and checking basement 6x6 posts.

2. In response to point 4): I am surprised of UNISOL’s Review to support their conclusions “the engineering drawings are adequate for this structure” and they “are satisfied that member sizes appear adequate” and the inability to stay focus on the Review’s purpose. Yes, UNISOL was to provide their opinion regarding the details and design for 12 Vickery Road; however, without proof of analysis, the opinion does not mean much. It would have been helpful to know what documents the calculations were based on, and if the Grade of the fir post is UNISOL’s conclusion, then the supporting evidence should include the point load differences. I appreciated the Review was stamped but so was the drawings, and the observation onsite shows the calculation may be incorrect as the augmented posts are still continuing to move downwards.

As a public sector procurement consultant, my fiduciary responsibilities are to protect the interests of the public sector organization and ensure they adhere to the laws of tendering, trading agreements, statutes and regulations, and administrative rules such as policies and procedures. I am to conduct my fiduciary duty honestly, in good faith and strictly in the best interest of the other party (i.e. the beneficiary).

According to the Engineers and Geoscientists BC’s Code of Ethics, “Registrants must act at all times with fairness, courtesy and good faith toward all persons with whom the registrant has professional dealing, and in accordance with the public interest. Registrants must uphold the values of truth, honesty, and trustworthiness and safeguard human life and welfare and the environment. In keeping with these basic tenets, registrants must: .....8. avoid situations and circumstances in which there is a real or perceived conflict of interest and ensure conflicts of interest, including perceived conflicts of interest, are properly disclosed and necessary measures are taken so a conflict of interest does not bias decisions or recommendations; ...12. undertake work and documentation with due diligence and in accordance with any guidance developed to standardize professional documentation for the applicable profession; and 13. conduct themselves with fairness, courtesy, and good faith towards clients, colleagues, and others, give credit where it is due and accept, as well as give, honest and fair professional comment.”

the Owners agree UNISOL’s involvement in carrying “out a detailed (re)design to identify any omissions etc.” on 12 Vickery Road is no longer required.

When Mayor Sid Tobias proposed a pause on all new developments for six (6) months, the Owners (who are also residents of the Town) agreed with his comment that Town of View Royal needs to evaluate its housing stock and consult residents about the future of the community before the province forces its hand. The construction industry is trying to keep up with demand and as a public sector procurement consultant, I have observed the number of vendors who are competing for projects is shrinking because they do not have the resources to complete the projects they are working on, much less the ability to take on new projects.

I realize our project is not as complex as that of the RidgeView Place (formerly known as Danbrook One); however, there are some similarities in the deficiencies in the design drawings:

1. “some Level 2 transfer beams rest on thin, load bearing walls that are supported on the Level 1 slab with no beams, and the strength of the slab is not adequate to transfer the applicable loads;” and
2. “several steel columns are undersized, including the 3 x 3 x .25 steel column at the southeast corner of level 3, and the 127 x 127 x 127 x 6 columns that extend from level 1 slab to the underside of the level 3 slab;”

The similarity, in layman’s terms, is that something heavy is sitting on posts that cannot bear the weight.

If you take into consideration the buepoint drawing dated February 14, 2020, and the subsequent changes such as changing I-beams to 2x12 and addition of new LVLs on the main floor (for example, EOR’s September 17, 2021 email approving the change of the I-Beams to 2x12s); the basement 6x6 posts cannot realistically bear the weight of a completed living floor with furniture, and people.

Conclusion and Requested Actions

In conclusion, the Owners would like the following actions to be taken:

1. UNISOL to provide details on which documents were used to complete their load bearing calculations;
2. UNISOL to provide their calculations in determining their conclusion the member sizes are adequate;
3. EOR to issue a change order. As you advised John to proceed and just make it better during the July 14th phone call, please note, a builder cannot “just make it better” without an engineer issuing change orders for structural changes. When an error is made by the builder, the engineer can ask for the builder to correct that error to match the design or they can make revisions to the design;
4. [Redacted section]
5. Your (Stephen’s) apology to John (Owner/Builder) for questioning his qualifications based on the libel statements made by UNISOL. I am taken back by your action as that is not the standard of conduct expected of a public sector employee; and
6. The Town of View Royal Council and Administration to review the Town of View Royal’s inspection process to ensure builders are not being held hostage when an engineer will not sign off on the Schedule B, due to an error on their Structural Engineering Drawings that the engineer on record will not admit to or rectify, in order for the owner to obtain the Occupancy Permit.

As time is of the essence, I would like the requested actions for points 1 to 5 to be completed before the end of business day of August 11, 2023. This Review was completed on May 13th by UNISOL; however, the Town only received it on June 16th after I followed up, on your behalf, on June 15th. It then took another month, before I received a copy of the Review. If John and I followed the Review’s direction to remove the augmentations and replace with the existing 6x6 Grade 1 Fir with new 6x6 Grade 1 Fir posts, within six (6) months, we would be the proud owners of a $341,858.62 (expenditures made to July 12, 2023, I still have other costs to enter into my Excel workbook since that date) pile of wood and concrete. I think we would all like to avoid that outcome.

Lastly, why do Robert and you keep threatening John and myself with Title 57 Note Against Land Title That Building Regulations Contravened? According to this section of the Community Charter, it states “A building inspector may recommend to the council that is consider a resolution under subsection (3) if during the course of carrying out duties, the building inspector:

• (a) observes a condition, with respect to land or a building or other structure, that the inspector considers.
  • (i) results from the contravention or, or is in contravention of,
    • (A) a municipal bylaw,
    • (B) a Provincial building regulation, or
    • (C) any other enactment
  • that relates to the construction or safety of buildings or other structures, and
  • (ii) that, as result of the condition, a building or other structure is unsafe or is unlikely to be usable for its expected purpose during its normal lifetime, or
• (b) discovers that
  • (i) something was done with respect to a building or other structure, or the construction of a building or other structure that required a permit or an inspection under a bylaw, regulation or enactment referred to in paragraph (a)(i), and
  • (ii) the permit was not obtained or the inspection not satisfactorily completed.”

When I look at the above Community Charter section, point (b) does not apply as we have our building permit. The December 6, 2022 Inspection Report we have regarding the framing (given the conflicting directives the Builder was receiving from buepoint, he requested a Framing Inspection from the Town), states: “Partially Approved”. Following were the Building Inspector’s comments:

• “Subject to P-Eng Report to be sent to Officer,
• Completion of Exterior Sheathing
• Toplate continuous to complete
• Final 45° offsets to complete
• Knotching metal plate required”

Other than the P-Eng Report, everything else has been completed. The P-Eng Report has not been completed because we were waiting for the second opinion to determine if the building design undersized the supporting posts in the basement; hence, all work on the inside of the building stopped. Concerned about the possibility of building collapse, we removed everything being stored in the basement. Once the failing 6x6 posts have been addressed, the Builder can then get back to completing the items for the Framing Review and Inspection. When Robert and you asked for the rain-screen to be completed, John completed it; however, you cancelled the inspection because of the UNISOL’s Review (see email below). The Builder (John) has on numerous occasions stated that if a task is identified as a requirement of the Town of View Royal’s Building Bylaws, he will complete the required task(s).

For now, until the action items noted above are completed, the Builder cannot continue his work on framing as it is unsafe to do any construction work that could impact the building’s equilibrium: that is, no adding of new items or excessive pounding, especially on the west side, inside the building that may further burden the supporting basement posts. About ten (10) days ago, we tested the cardboard in the 4th temporary post: we can no longer move the cardboard, this means the basement LVLs is still moving downwards even with the augmented posts. Unless actions is taken soon, the collapse of the west side of the building is imminent: for now, we have the 4th temporary post providing additional support.

Using the points described in Title 57, the failing and checking basement posts created a condition in the building that is unsafe and the building is unlikely to be usable for its expected purpose during its normal lifetime. The Owners asked the Town for assistance to ensure the building at 12 Vickery Road is safe and usable for its expected purpose during its normal lifetime; however, we, the Owners, are constantly being treated as the wrongdoing party when its actually us who brought the safety concern to the Town’s attention and want the condition addressed before continuing with the inside construction work. It is less costly for everyone involved to fix the problem now then waiting until the building is completed and occupied;

Sincerely, Anna Becker

P.S. I’ve included Mayor Tobias and Councillor Brown to make them aware of concerns that should be considered when reviewing the upcoming new Building Bylaw to replace Bylaw No. 786

---

From: Stephen Patterson spatterson@viewroyal.ca Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2023 11:37 AM To: anna.becker@ccpurchasing.com Cc: Robert Gutierrez robert@biccprofessionals.com; Leanne Taylor ltaylor@viewroyal.ca Subject: 12 Vickery 3rd party report

Good morning, Anna, and John,

After reviewing Thor’s May 13th,, 2023 report we cannot perform anymore inspections until all deficiencies listed under section 3.0 have been addressed. If you have any further questions, please feel free to reach out.

Stephen Patterson Building Inspector Town of View Royal | 45 View Royal Ave. | Victoria, BC V9B 1A6 | Ph: 250-812-7682 | The 2018 BC Building Code is free online: https://www.bccodes.ca/building-code.html