EABO

c/o Professional Engineers Ontario

101 - 40 Sheppard Avenue West

Toronto, Ontario M2N 6K9

Tel: (416) 224-1100 / 1-800-339-3716

Fax: (416) 224-1579

A Joint Committee of:

Professional Engineers Ontario; Consult ing Engineers Ontario;

Ontario Association of Architects; Ontario Building Officials Association;

Large Municipal it ies Chief Building Officials; and Toronto Area Chief Building Officials Committee

MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON MARCH 5, 2014 Held at PEO Offices 40 Sheppard Avenue West, Toronto, Ontario Attendees: Brian Aitken, OAA Mark Bendix, PEO Gerry Conway, OAA David Craddock, OAA (Chair) David Dengler, PEO [via teleconference] John Dorris, OBOA Brad Green, OAA Chris Roney, PEO Jason Schmidt-Shoukri, TACBOC [via teleconference] Michael Seiling, OBOA David Tipler, CEO [via teleconference] José Vera, PEO Regrets: Kyle Bentley, OBOA Guests: James Ross, MMAH [via teleconference]

2.

1. OPENING OF MEETING The meeting opened at 1:10 p.m., with 10 members of the Committee in attendance. Agenda A member asked to add C - Container Buildings. The OBC Professional Design Chart was also added. Introductions The Chair introduced new member, B. Green, representing OAA. 2. MINUTES/NOTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING A motion was made to approve the Minutes of the October 22 2013 meeting as written. Moved by: C. Roney Seconded by: M. Bendix CARRIED 3. MUNICIPALITIES AS LEADERS IN ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Background:

Previously, a member brought up that the statement in the Energy Efficiency Designs, “models accurately reflect the reference and proposed building designs”, is problematic since models are approximations. The word “accurately” should be removed since this is not an exact science. Perhaps the signature box should be removed. Overall, EABO is pleased with the spirit and intent of these Energy Efficiency Forms.

The intent of the statement, “models accurately reflect the reference and proposed building designs”, means the models are accurate to the rules (i.e. ASHRAE, etc.) and do not refer to the real energy usage. Furthermore, the designer is “certifying” refers to the rules, and not the actual product. Previously, the guests from the MMAH mentioned that some word-smithing could be done to address concerns. Action: J. Vera to forward the Word code comparison to the EABO members.

3.

Follow-Up: EABO members (B. Aitken, P. Hastings and J. Vera) submitted a request to the MMAH (C. Kahramanoglu) with suggestions for new wording on this form.

Action: J. Vera to find out if these forms should be sealed by an engineer. OAA mentioned that architects also do this work. Architects usually seal drawings and specifications, not forms. Building Officials may prefer that design professionals (both architects and engineers) decide to seal or not seal the form so that it is uniform.

Discussion: A member pointed out that the new MMAH form reflects the requested edits.

Action: J. Vera to ask the MMAH if the date is correct.

Some Building Officials would like the MMAH form to be sealed. Architects would not seal this form since it does not fall under design. Engineers only seal final documents containing an engineering opinion provided as a service to the public.

Action: J. Vera to ask C. Kahramanoglu of the MMAH if their design is

information or if an engineering opinion should be provided (i.e. what is the intent of this form).

The previous forms required a seal; consequently, there is a precedence for a seal

requirement.

The form is assuming of the energy modeling. Beta Release of New CAN-Quest Modeling Tool The software is not available on this site; a request needs to be sent. 4. COORDINATION BETWEEN PROFESSIONAL DESIGNERS

Background:

Previously, it was discussed that the new Ontario Building Code which has been released, although not effective until 2014, does not refer to coordination of professionals.

4.

Currently, there is no regulated requirement for the work of professional designers to be coordinated by professional designers. The MMAH is looking at this issue, and noted:

- How would this change go forward?

- What would this change be?

A comprehensive proposal from the OAA and PEO Council will be needed. Non-professional project managers could place design professionals in situations where they are pressured to act unprofessionally. There is no requirement for professional coordination until the building permit stage. Coordination is required earlier. British Columbia has a coordinating professional. Should coordination fall under the practice of engineering and architecture?

Action: PEO staff and OAA staff to find out from the Ministry of the Attorney

General whether there could be a requirement in the Building Code Act to not issue a building permit until a coordinating professional is hired (i.e. design is enforceable in the Professional Engineers Act and the Architects Act).

Action: PEO staff and OAA staff to work on a consensus document on what

coordination is. Follow-Up: The Professional Standards Committee at PEO reviewed the

coordination guideline from OAA. Question: Does the coordination refer only to the architect’s work, or only the

engineer’s work, or all of the above? Answer: All of the above.

Discussion: The Architects Act and the Professional Engineers Act cannot trigger the hiring of a coordinator by an owner. The Building Code Act could likely trigger the above. This topic would be ideal for the Building Advisory Council. A member indicated that this is a window of opportunity to implement.

5.

Question: Are OAA and PEO working on changing their Acts to include coordination?

Answer: OAA has a practice tip bulletin on coordination. Likely, the Building Code Act, the Professional Engineers Act and the Architects Act would need changes to include coordination of professionals. The MMAH is open to the idea of coordinating professional. The term “owner” might not be used in the Building Code Act. “Owner” is used in municipal forms. At the Elliot Lake Inquiry, several members supported the concept of a coordinating professional. To the detriment of the public, non-professionals have been coordinating the design work of professionals. The Building Code Act can trigger an owner to hire a coordinator. Similarly, General Review is triggered by the Building Code Act. The Architects Act and the Professional Engineers Act then have General Review requirements for their members. The statement applies to projects where architects and engineers are required. There was discussion on coordination in residential buildings. Action: J. Vera to send the statement to J. Ross of the MMAH. Should the definitions of engineering or architecture be changed? Coordination could be covered by these definitions, however, there would likely need to be a legal review.

5. GENERAL REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION

Action: B. Aitken and P. Hastings to take the form to OAA Council. Follow-Up: J. Vera forwarded the form for peer review by PEO’s Professional

Standards Committee and, afterwards, to PEO Council approval.

Discussion: J. Vera provided an edited version of the General Review Commitment form. Question: Why was the “whereas not forbidding general review without a permit”

removed? Answer: In brief, general review cannot commence until a permit is issued.

However, there have been cases of engineers doing footing inspection, i.e. general review work without a permit.

6.

Action: J. Vera to add endorsement notes after OAA and PEO approval of the form.

A motion was made that the EABO members accept the form, which was carried.

D. Dengler formatted the form. Action: J. Vera to send the form to the EABO members.

6. STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SOLAR COLLECTOR INSTALLATIONS

Background: Single-storey buildings could have roofs that are light; therefore, the solar panels could have an effect on the earthquake loads. Previously, it was suggested that a bulletin from OAA, OBOA and PEO may help address this issue. Action: EABO to create a news brief on this issue (J. Vera, C. Roney, D. Tipler

and the Chair). C. Roney forwarded information to J. Vera on this issue. Question: Is it for Part 3 and Part 9? Answer: For both Part 3 and Part 9. Question: Should engineers review solar panel installations on pre-engineered

trusses on Part 9 buildings? Answer: The Professional Engineers Act has an exception for buildings under

600m2. The Building Code Act allows for a qualified person. Therefore, it is currently up to the discretion of the Building Official.

Discussion: J. Vera reported that PEO is looking into creating a Practice Bulletin. Sliding ice could also be a problem.

7.

7. INFORMATION

ARIDO Information Item J. Vera sent the attached Scope of Practice from ARIDO to the EABO members. ARIDO has contacted the OAA and PEO, and has been meeting with the MMAH. Action: B. Aitken to resend the Scope of Practice.

8. TRAINING

Follow-Up: J. Vera prepared a letter, on behalf of the Chair, to the CEO of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (“OSPE”), requesting a training discount for OAA and OBOA members.

The MMAH will have training slides on the changes to the Ontario Building Code 2006 vs. 2012. Follow- Up: J. Vera did follow up with OSPE.

New Item: The OBOA will not have direct access to the MMAH training material. The OBOA will create nine courses for people interested in obtaining their BCIN. The MMAH indicated that colleges and universities are better at offering courses and,

consequently, people will approach colleges for these courses.

Discussion: The Chair reported that the OAA is figuring out how the website can identify members eligible for discounts.

9. PLANNING ACT Background: Previously, a member reported that the OAA wrote a report for architects involved in

site plans. EABO can discuss the results of the report once it is released. There is nothing to report as yet.

8.

A member reported that the site plan approval process should be brought back to the architects.

The report is on the OAA website.

Follow-Up: J. Vera added the OAA report to the next meeting’s agenda. Discussion: Is this issue outside the scope of EABO? Although this issue affects EABO, EABO can only make recommendations. Furthermore, the Planning Act does not belong to the MMAH. Action: OAA to report on what traction this report has received. Action: J. Schmidt-Shoukri to propose guests for this topic.

10. NEW BUSINESS OAA Matrix Part 3 & 9 “Post Disaster Building or Component: Yes/No” Background:

The following issues were previously reported:

- A member asked for another line in the matrix to state if the building is a post-disaster building.

- Another member brought up that the occupancy of a building is critical and should

be in the matrix form. Occupancies are already included. - Furthermore, the seismic hazard index is also important and should be in the matrix

form.

Follow-Up: The OAA looked into adding these items in the matrix.

The OAA is currently working on this issue. A member indicated that there should be an “importance category” of the building.

Discussion: The new matrix was provided.

9.

Action: J. Vera to add the new matrix to the next meeting. There was discussion on which building should be considered post-disaster.

Mandatory Electronic Submission

J. Vera previously reported that the issue regarding mandatory electronic submissions in

Toronto and the problems with having an unsecured sealed engineering drawing is closer to a solution. The City of Toronto is still currently looking to find an appropriate level of security for the electronic submissions that works with their system and is secure enough for engineers and architects.

The City of Toronto would like to mark up the drawings and has not found a way to

allow secured PDFs.

SB10 Joint Industry Stakeholder Group Background: There was a recommendation for an SB10 joint industry stakeholder group, which would seek 1-2 volunteers from each group (OAA, PEO, LMCBO/TACBOC and OBOA) to prepare documents to create and produce FAQ's on this subject. The FAQ's would be posted on a central website(s). For example, OBOA has FAQ's for SB12, including the EEDS Form. The FAQ’s are there for the owners. SB12 was prior to SB10. SB12 is for low-rise residential. Follow-Up: J. Vera forwarded C. Kahramanoglu’s information to the EABO

members. Question: Is there interest in creating an SB10 joint industry group? Answer: Has there been an official invitation yet? Action: J. Vera and the Chair will put together some information for obtaining

volunteers for this group. Closed Loop Geothermal Systems

Background: Previously, there were concerns that the MMAH has no jurisdiction with this law; wells are regulated by the Ministry of the Environment. Building Officials do not know what to do or if the Ministry of the Environment looks at these applications.

10.

Follow-Up: J. Vera contacted C. Kahramanoglu regarding this issue. The following change came from the Ministry of the Environment: - Wells deeper than 5 meters require approval from the Ministry of the Environment.

- The Ontario Building Code has its own requirements referencing CSA.

- The Ministry of the Environment regulation is not listed as applicable law.

Therefore, there are two different laws and a different framework for Building Officials.

J. Ross reported that the Ministry of the Environment has updated the Geothermal Regulations.

Monitoring the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (“AODA”) Background: Previously, a member reported that there will be changes to the Ontario Building Code. Some changes will be in Version 3.8 of the Ontario Building Code. Stakeholders have been asked to participate in a consultation with the MMAH Technical Advisory Committee. EABO will be hearing back from the MMAH on this issue. The MMAH staff mentioned that there will be Ontario Building Code revisions reflecting this consultation.

Discussion: The MMAH reported that the process is still underway. Likely, there will be changes to the Ontario Building Code.

J. Ross reported that the Ontario Building Code now includes accessibility.

ASHRAE Software from MMAH Background: J. Vera previously reported that the MMAH sent some information on ASHRAE software. It was positive that the MMAH advised that COMCHEK was acceptable to use. COMCHEK is for tradeoff methodology (i.e. better windows), not for simulation.

11.

Access to Standards Previously Reported:

G. Conway received a proposal from Techstreet for access to standards. The OAA felt that even with the low price it would be a hard sell to the membership at this time and will not pursue the Techstreet option further. It was learned that online access to standards referenced in the Ontario Building Code can be done. The OAA Practice Committee has put together a task group to look at alternate financing/payment models. One would be to go National and for NRC to offer NBC standards access as a product. The OAA reported that this issue has not gone to Council. APEGBC had an initiative for members to obtain standards using their annual fees. PEO is a regulator; therefore, this service may belong with OSPE or CEO. Update:

There is a business opportunity with NRC for packages, as opposed to buying the National Building Code.

EABO Final General Review Report Background: The OAA reports instances of building inspectors asking for the EABO Final General Review Report wording to be changed to read, “The building conforms to all code requirements.” The OAA reported that, in Toronto, the above occurred. General Review cannot confirm that a building conforms to all code requirements. The design engineer is responsible that the design conforms to code. Since General Review is a random sampling, there should not be an expectation that the General Review engineer should certify that the building conforms to all code requirements. Requests to change the form should come to EABO. The builder is contractually responsible for the construction. Should there be a regulation where the builder makes a written assurance that the construction was done as per the design?

12.

Building Officials need a letter stating there are no deficiencies. How could an engineer or architect make this statement after “General Review”?

Question Building Official [Editorial: This item was covered at the beginning of the meeting.] Background: A member reported that they recently had discussions with various consultants that want to submit a “custom” version of their Final General Review Report/Letter. Question: What is the intent of the Section 3.0 Exceptions in the Final General

Review Report? Answer: General Review is not a certification. If there are exceptions, the

Building Permit may need to be modified. The term “final” might not be accurate since the architect/engineer might be requested to do more work on site. Exceptions contain important information for Building Officials.

Question: What are the origins of this form? Answer: It is an EABO document. The member will take back the information obtained at the meeting. Mid-Rise Wood Buildings The MMAH is studying including mid-rise wood building with safety features into the Ontario Building Code. There is a CSA standard that may need to be amended.

Professional Design OBC Chart The Removal of the Chart: There is the possibility that very small assemblages still need engineers now that the chart in the Ontario Building Code was removed. Interior renovation exceptions were removed. One solution would be for the Ontario Building Code to refer to the Architects Act and the Professional Engineers Act, as per T. Moore’s LMCBO proposal.

13.

The MMAH has tried to get the table back in, but the minority government situation has prevented this goal. Potentially, many municipalities will prevent non-professionals from designing assemblages and see if a court case stops them. Many Building Officials would like the MMAH, PEO and the OAA to work together to resolve these issues. Action: J. Vera and B. Ennis to set up a meeting with the MMAH. There is no definition for “suitable qualified persons”. Action: J. Ross to reply to the OBOA concerns. Clarification of O. Reg. 368/13 The Chair reported that the MMAH is receiving comments regarding the wording that has been changed, e.g. requirements for equipment that does not exist. Perhaps EABO should create a list of items like these that are problematic; for example, water closets to be closed automatically that reference the door poles (i.e. the wrong item). C-Container Buildings A member reported issues regarding homes built using C-Containers in different configurations. These homes are not prescriptive and require structural engineers. Action: J. Vera to bring this item to PEO’s Professional Standard Committee.

11. ADJOURNMENT AND DATE OF NEXT MEETING The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. The next meeting will be decided via e-mail communication.

Action: J. Vera to send a poll for the next meeting sometime in Spring 2014. The

poll will also be sent to the guests from the MMAH. Action: J. Vera to add Temporary Stages.