ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Date: May 23, 1996
Dept. File No. STRUCDES
TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: City Building Inspector
SUBJECT: Structural Design Review Pilot Project
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. THAT Council approve the proposed Structural Design Review
pilot project as detailed in this report at an annual cost
estimated to be $400,000.00.
B. THAT Council approve an increase in building permit fees for
larger buildings only, to fund the pilot project ranging from
$0.45 to $0.75 per $1,000 of construction value and averaging
10% overall.
C. THAT Council instruct the Director of Legal Services to bring
forward appropriate amendments to the Building By-Law.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of
A, B, and C.
COUNCIL POLICY
Council has always promoted principles of safe building design by
adoption of modern Building By-Laws and requiring compliance with such
by-laws.
BACKGROUND
This report is further to my report recommending amendments to the
Building By-law, dated March 10, 1995 and approved by Council on March
28, 1995. One of the subjects of the by-laws recommended for adoption
related to independent Structural Design Review. It was withdrawn from
the package of by-law amendments that Council finally approved on June
20th, 1995.
It appeared at that time that the Association of Professional Engineers
& Geoscientists (APEGBC) would seek an amendment to its Act so that we
could withdraw our proposed Charter amendment which would have
authorized the setting up of a Structural Design Review Program.
However, it was subsequently learned that it would take at least two
years to realize a change to either the Engineers' and Geoscientists'
Act or the City Charter to accomplish the permanent Structural Design
Review Program. The recent findings of the APEGBC Practice Review
Committee confirm the need for independent review in the area of
structural and seismic design of buildings.
- 2 -
Because of a decision back in 1965, by the Council of that time, City
staff rely solely upon the structural engineers' seals and letters of
assurance and do not review structural designs for compliance with
current code standards. Prior to 1965, City staff carried out reviews
on all structural designs because the by-law was then relatively simple
and did not include complex seismic design requirements. Vancouver, in
1965, therefore became the only major city in Canada to rely solely on
engineer's seals as evidence of compliance with structural and seismic
design standards and to eliminate structural design review from their
Building Permit Process.
DISCUSSION
Since 1965, conditions prevailing in the practice of consulting
engineering and the construction industry in general have changed
markedly. These include:
Increased fee competition among engineers together with
uncontrolled bidding for professional services. This has had a
significant effect on reducing the scope and quality of
professional services rendered on a project, particularly in the
field of commercial and developer-driven projects.
Fast-tracking of projects leading to shorter time frames for
preparation of engineering designs and increased potential for
miscommunication within the construction team.
Fragmentation of the construction industry with a blurring of
traditional lines of control and responsibility within the
construction industry.
The above trends have been a concern to the City for many years. The
1988 structural failure of the Save-On Foods store in Burnaby's Station
Square development highlighted these concerns and revealed the extent to
which structural and seismic safety had been jeopardized by an
inadequate level of engineering services and a subsequent lack of
effective communication amongst the design and construction team on this
fast-tracked project.
The subsequent investigation into the causes of the Save-On Foods
collapse by Commissioner Dan J Closkey made 10 wide ranging
recommendations to improve the situation, many of which have been
implemented. However, the first key recommendation has not been
implemented at this time.
This recommendation #1 advocated that reviews be made of a random sample
of structural designs together with reviews of complex or unusual
designs as selected by the municipality. The reviews were to be
commissioned from independent engineers and paid for by funding derived
from a levy on permit fees and administered by the APEGBC. The full
text of this recommendation is contained in Appendix A.
- 3 -
Around this time the City also experienced significant problems with
structural designs. The letter of January 1990 from the then City
Building Inspector, Mr R. V. Hebert P.Eng., to the editor of the
"Professional Engineer" magazine describes the situation quite
forcibly.(see Appendix B)
An attempt to carry out the requirements of the Closkey Commission was
made but without better evidence, not enough concern was expressed to
justify such a major move at that time. Subsequently, in 1992, the
APEGBC mandated in-house checking of all structural designs together
with an independent concept review. The APEGBC also instituted a
program of professional and technical peer practice reviews with the
emphasis on structural engineers working in the area of commercial
building design. These reviews have indicated significant structural
deficiencies in the design of several buildings, particularly with
respect to seismic design. Such reviews have resulted in newly
constructed buildings being retrofitted seismically due to conceptual
errors in their seismic design. The cost of such retrofits, carried out
after completion of construction, may fall on current owners and tenants
who had no involvement in the original design and construction of the
building.
Clearly, this practice review program has highlighted an awareness that
such reviews should be carried out before construction commences, when
changes to the design may be relatively easily effected. The program
has also highlighted the need for corrective action at this time and
indicated that it would be inadvisable to wait a further 2-3 years for
the required Act changes to permit the APEGBC to implement their
Structural Review Program. It has also highlighted the fact that the
City cannot rely upon the level of compliance of new buildings with
current structural design standards and there is no means of determining
the extent to which corrective action is required.
This is particularly significant for seismic design deficiencies which
may only become apparent after a major earthquake. Earthquakes have a
propensity for exposing deficiencies in the lateral load resisting
system of buildings, and the consequences of such deficiencies for the
physical safety of building occupants and the economic life of the City
after a major earthquake are incalculable. As the City is responsible
for earthquake emergency response and would bear the brunt of any
economic disruption following a major earthquake, it would appear
prudent to take additional measures to ensure that the new construction
in the City is seismically adequate.
Commencing in 1994, the City reopened discussion on this issue for a
second time and formed a joint committee between the APEGBC, the
Structural Engineering Consultants of BC and the Consulting Engineers of
BC with representation from the City and the municipality of Burnaby.
This committee once again recommended formation of an Independent
Structural Review Board which would be administered by representatives
selected from the participating organizations and which would commission
independent reviews of structural designs.
- 4 -
After extensive discussion between lawyers for the APEGBC and our Law
department, it was concluded that the Structural review Board should
operate under the control of the APEGBC and be legally constituted by a
change in the " Engineers' and Geoscientists' Act".
As an interim measure, and to effect some immediate improvements to our
current system, the City has agreed to review the feasibility of
proceeding with a Pilot project for structural reviews. In addition to
improving the level of compliance with structural and seismic design
standards, this pilot project would have the following objectives:
To provide better information on the level of compliance with
current structural and seismic design standards of building
projects submitted for permit and to assess more accurately
the extent to which corrective action is warranted.
To provide useful feedback on the operation and effectiveness
of a structural review system. This will assist with the
implementation of a province-wide review system should this
proceed as currently proposed within a two to three year time
frame.
To provide a forum for discussion and interpretation of
structural design codes and to achieve a reasonable level of
consistency in their application and enforcement.
To provide the City with an effective means of verifying the
structural and seismic adequacy of questionable designs and
appropriate assurance that the City may rely upon such design
reviews.
Each year when we review our fee schedule with the Director of Finance,
we are reminded that most Canadian cities charge at least five (5) times
as much for major building permit fees as we do. This is mostly to pay
for the significant amount of time needed by their municipal staff to
carry out a thorough structural design review, sufficient to find major
errors, and thorough enough to properly challenge the structural
engineer of record. It also provides funding to cover an appeal process
where interpretations and innovative design solutions can be addressed.
The City currently has no source of funding to either carry out
structural design reviews internally or to send structural drawings out
for an independent design review. However, this pilot project is
designed primarily to assess through a small sampling of designs the
level of compliance with structural or seismic design standards achieved
under the current system. A further report with more extensive
recommendations will be presented to Council once the full extent of the
problem is understood. At this point we recommend that the structural
design review be out-sourced and carried out by prequalified independent
practicing designers which is a more economical solution than adding
more municipal staff.
- 5 -
PROPOSED CHANGE TO FEES
We propose no increase for smaller projects but to increase fees for
projects with an estimated cost in excess of $50,000 by an average of
45õ-75õ per $1000 of construction cost.
This increase would represent a 10% overall increase in total building
permit fees, but with the major portion (15% to 25% increase) directed
at large complex buildings. This funding would generate sufficient
funds to enable us to out-source approximately 100 projects for
independent structural review over a 12 month period.
This level of review would constitute an effective pilot program and
enable us to test the program and to develop an advisory panel and
appeal board to obtain input and feedback from the design and
construction community.
CONCLUSION
This report recommends a reasonable increase in fees of the more major
buildings to fund a pilot project of independent structural design
review. By raising the building permit fees by a modest amount, we
would develop a source of funding for staff to send out selected
buildings for an independent design review on a spot check basis. After
carrying out this program for a limited period of approximately one
year, staff propose to return to Council with a more detailed proposal
for ensuring adequate compliance with prevailing structural and seismic
safety standards, but only after a detailed assessment of the extent of
any problem related to such compliance. This assessment will be reviewed
extensively with the design professionals and construction industry
before proceeding to draft further recommendations.
* * * * *