A17
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Date: June 11, 1996
Dept. File: PL0007.RPT
TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: City Building Inspector
SUBJECT: Wood Frame Buildings and Stucco (Outside Expertise)
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT Council approve $10,000 funding for a wood-frame building
and wall-cladding expert from the U.K. to come to Vancouver.
Source of funds to be contingency reserve.
B. THAT Council approve a grant of $40,000 to assist the National
Research Council carry out a study on the local climate and
building envelope problems, including some recommendations of
potential solutions for future Building Codes. (Approval of
this grant will require 8 votes of Council)
C. THAT Council approve a 10% surcharge on Building Permit fees
between $50,000 and $5,000,000 to recover these costs and
instruct the Director of Legal Services together with the
Director of Financial Services, to bring back the required
amendment to the Building Permit fees.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of the Community Services Group recommends the
approval of A, B and C.
COUNCIL POLICY
On December 7, 1995, Council expressed concern for priority in the
Control of leaks in building envelopes, while considering a General
Manager's report on "Leaky Buildings".
PURPOSE
This report recommends the approval of up to $10,000 funding to bring to
Vancouver an expert, who has led a task force for the U.K. government on
studying their wood frame building industry including related stucco and
siding application issues.
This report also recommends that we offer a $40,000 grant as our share
to fund a study by the National Research Council (NRC). The above study
would be funded through a consortium and would review local climate
conditions and would be all-encompassing, of all current wood-frame
building problems.
BACKGROUND
For several years now, staff have attempted to deal with leaky
buildings. Since 1992 they began specifically dealing with Exterior
Insulated Foam Systems (EIFS) which are basically stucco-covered. At
that time they began establishing study groups, speaking at seminars,
providing direct input into the design standards and the Code process
and by representation on the Part 5 Building Code Committee itself. We
felt we had made some improvements and more were coming.
However, last summer, through several media showings and publications,
concern was expressed by many affected persons that building envelope
construction was becoming a serious problem on many sites and they
expected the City and not the industry to do something about it.
This led up to the General Manager's report on "Leaky Buildings" which
was heard by Council on December 7, 1995.
DISCUSSION
Vancouver and the immediate area southwards to Seattle is deemed to be
in a serious Decay Probability Zone, in fact one of the highest on the
continent. Therefore our proposed By-law intends to deal seriously with
this issue by specifically requiring private specialist designs and
inspections to be made for all building envelopes. Further we are
insisting that the wall drainage required in the by-law for years be
provided for all cladding systems.
Although it seemed a rather straight-forward task at first, to bring
forward changes to our by-law, it is much more difficult to have changes
accepted by members of the design and construction industry without much
debate. Some fear that leakage control comes at too high a cost and
refuse to use so-called "untried" new technologies. Wall drainage may
have been used elsewhere for centuries, but they are more time-consuming
methodologies than currently practiced locally and the extra effort will
cost more as a result.
This is almost exactly the same scenario that existed in the U.K. about
10 years ago. The U.K. government therefore struck up a major task
force to examine the issues and they have come back with revolutionary
recommendations. One of the principal members of that task force, an
architect, would be interested in coming to Vancouver to hold seminars
and speak to the entire local construction industry. He will speak on
what specific changes were made to totally eliminate this persistent
problem in the U.K. which has made it possible to expect a 10-year
warranty against any leakage in stucco buildings.
The seminars will be directed specifically to those with the most
control of the design and the quality of construction. Unless designers
and contractors are made aware of simple solutions to similar
experiences elsewhere, more information on "what went wrong" is not
going to help.
In fact, there are currently several fact-finding studies going on
locally which is exhausting potential funding for many other
undertakings. Also the timing of these studies is dragging on,
providing no relief for owners and potential owners of wood frame
condominiums in the form of solutions.
Staff have made several enquiries and have learned that, of the $15,000
necessary to bring in the expert and carry out the building science
seminars and detailing study sessions locally, we are lacking $9,000.
Therefore, we are requesting Council to approve funding up to $10,000 to
bring in the expert and set up some study sessions during the next
couple of months.
In addition, NRC has recently come back with a scaled-down version of
its original proposal of December 1995. They have recommended that
Vancouver take control of the NRC fact-finding long-term study and
donate $40,000 of the funding.
Since the above studies are basically for the benefit of future owners
of wood-frame Condos, it is proposed that this money also come from the
contingency reserve. Because we would not see immediate benefits
locally except in future editions of the Building Code, our preference
is still to take what is useful immediately and this is our priority.
However both are worthwhile projects and both should be done and we are
recommending both for that reason.
In order to recover this funding, we would propose a 10% surcharge on
Building Permit fees from $50,000 to $5,000,000 in construction value
where the majority of this activity is. This recovery would amount to
$80,000 in a typical year.
CONCLUSION
If we bring in an expert on this subject who has already gone through a
10-year long study on quality-control in the wood-framing industry in a
climate very similar to ours, Council will be showing the local industry
that it supports establishing adequate quality control requirements
locally, and the improved quality audit procedures that will be required
by our by-law.
By bringing to Vancouver the results of the U.K. study, local experts
can then take much of the information provided rather than re-inventing
the whole wheel. They can then apply it together with other acceptable
building science solutions and not have to refer to any "untried"
technology at all, once we all become aware of the "tested" solutions.
Meanwhile, if Council also approves the grant for $40,000 we can rely
upon a full-scale study by NRC which will include a detailed review of
the local climate-related building envelope problems, as well as
offering some long term solutions.
These funds could be recovered by a 10% surcharge on the medium sized
buildings which are most affected by the climate-related problems.
* * * * *