# another deck failure



## mark handler

US balcony collapse 'kills five'

10 minutes ago

Janet O from ABC7News reports: ''A chaotic scene in Berkeley''

The balcony of a fourth floor flat in California has collapsed, killing five people and injuring eight, some seriously, police have said.

All five of those killed were Irish students, Ireland's Foreign Minister Charlie Flanagan said.

Police found the structure smashed on the street below after an emergency call just before 01:00 local time (08:00 GMT) on Tuesday in Berkeley.

Officials are still unsure why it happened, a police spokeswoman said.

Many of those hurt have life-threatening injuries, said Jennifer Coats, a Berkeley Police Department spokeswoman.

He said it was "too early to know the full extent of this dreadful accident", but a crisis hotline had been set up.

"My heart goes out to the families and loved ones of the deceased and those who have been injured in this appalling accident," said Mr Flanagan.

A local ABC reporter at the scene said it is thought the Irish people involved had come to California to work for the summer.

The Irish consul general in San Francisco is helping those affected and there is an Irish helpline (+353 1 418 0200).

The building has shops on the ground floor and flats on the higher floors.

Are you in the area? Are you affected by the balcony collapse? You can share your experiences by emailing haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk.

If you are available to speak with a BBC journalist, please include a telephone number.


----------



## mark handler

Should we be designing decks/balconies to a higher live load?


----------



## jdfruit

Radio news report just a few minutes ago: building was built circa 2002, maintenance supervisor interviewed by reporter didn't have an answer for cause of failure but did say they only had normal maintenance at the building, no unusual things to deal with.


----------



## mark handler

We need to rethink occupacy/live load design values


----------



## jar546

More information found here:

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_28321966/berkeley-5-dead-8-injured-balcony-collapse


----------



## mtlogcabin

h.	See Section 1604.8.3 for decks attached to exterior walls

5. Balconies and decks  (footnote h)     Same as occupancy served

Therein lies the problem

Call them assembly and require 100 psf. Snow drives the loads in my area and when you add in snow drifting we are close to the 100 psf number

1604.8.3 Decks.

Where supported by attachment to an exterior wall, decks shall be positively anchored to the primary structure and designed for both vertical and lateral loads as applicable. Such attachment shall not be accomplished by the use of toenails or nails subject to withdrawal. Where positive connection to the primary building structure cannot be verified during inspection, decks shall be self-supporting. Connections of decks with cantilevered framing members to exterior walls or other framing members shall be designed for both of the following:

1.	The reactions resulting from the dead load and live load specified in Table 1607.1, or the snow load specified in Section 1608, in accordance with Section 1605, acting on all portions of the deck.


----------



## jar546

And another article about this:  http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-berkeley-balcony-collapse-20150616-story.html


----------



## mark handler

Interesting.....


----------



## ICE

13 people on a deck built for two.  Overloading is a common cause.


----------



## cda

Wish there was a shot of another part of the building with an intact deck,

And that one Bo wants a landing outside the Juliet doors?


----------



## mjesse

mark handler said:
			
		

> Interesting.....


Looks like bad design/construction.

The joists are completely rotted. Looks like EIFS on the sides and bottom, water/moisture infiltrated the structure and couldn't drain out.

I would call for an investigation of the whole building


----------



## steveray

I agree with MJ...It is actually pretty difficult to "overload" a properly built deck with just people. Usually there are construction defects IMO.


----------



## JBI

I too feel the construction was inadequate, not necessarily the live load used.

Too often the attachment to the primary structure is simply not done properly. In the photos, deterioration appears to be the culprit.

Properly attached and maintained decks generally don't collapse.


----------



## Yikes

Balcony collapse in Berkeley

As of this writing, 6 people dead, 7 cricticallly injured.  That means there were at least 13 people on a cantilevered residential balcony - - looks to be about 4' x 8'.  It looks like the balcony framing gave way, dumping occupants 4 stories below, then the railing flipped over and came to rest on the balcony below.

The construction looks fairly recent, and typical for this area.  There was a major party going on at the apartment.

http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/kgo/images/cms/787821_1280x720.jpg

From the photo, it appears to me to be an F'b bending (moment) failure.


----------



## conarb

mjesse said:
			
		

> Looks like bad design/construction.The joists are completely rotted. Looks like EIFS on the sides and bottom, water/moisture infiltrated the structure and couldn't drain out.
> 
> I would call for an investigation of the whole building


M Jesse:

I think you are right, building was 13 years old, I can't tell if it's EIFS but by 2002 insurance companies weren't insuring contractors that were building with EIFS, but it's possible that one got an exception here.  Looking at the rotted joists I suspect OSB products, both joists and sheathing, that stuff can disintegrate with just exposure to humidity, so any leaks in flashings, membrane, or rail attachments could totally destroy it in 13 years.


----------



## Yikes

The balcony that failed appears to be at the topmost floor.  I wonder if it got more rain exposure, and had some rot issues.


----------



## steveray

Maybe the designer took a reduction in the rot potential because it doesn't rain in Cali? Anyone still think 5 story wood buildings are a good idea?


----------



## tbz

From the pictures I have seen here and a few others it looks like the floor joist were extended out from the floor system and the deck is just an extension of the floor system.

Either poor ventilation or water infiltration seems to have broken down the wood joists that with the weight shattered the joists and flipped the guard system around on a 180 degree pivot.

Looks like the front of the guard is now against the lower level door with the 2 sides extending back towards the street.

Basically a trap door drop to the street just let go.

The noise of the wood shattering must have been loud.


----------



## cda

Termites were invited to the party

https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/show_picture.pl?l=english&rais=https%3A%2F%2Fs16-us2.ixquick.com%2Fcgi-bin%2Fserveimage%3Furl%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Femergencypestcontrol.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F10%2FAnt-Termite.jpg%26sp%3D6280b9251c625f88eb4eff3245a6a32c

And maybe stucco finish???


----------



## Yikes

Not structural related, but FYI none of the student housing developers I work with want to have balconies on their projects.  Too many accidents at parties and too many despondent freshmen who want to end it all.


----------



## Yikes

steveray said:
			
		

> Maybe the designer took a reduction in the rot potential because it doesn't rain in Cali? Anyone still think 5 story wood buildings are a good idea?


Maybe.

I've never seen a catastrophic, sudden failure in normal wood framing, even if it is overloaded.  I strongly suspect rot.  Other than OSB, you can't solve for rot in wood construction by any other method that adequate waterproofing and ventilation.  FYI, I also like down jackets and down sleeping bags when I go backpacking - - but that's because I'm extra careful to make sure they don't get wet.


----------



## conarb

This is a 200% crop: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 From what I see there is no wire coming out of the stucco so it probably is EIFS, there is also evidence of what appears to be OSB, maybe even PSLs coming out of the building, if that's the case the building should be red-tagged, vacated, and completely rebuilt.  It also appears that the deck membrane is Bituthene, looks like the developer/architect cut corners every place they could.



			
				\ said:
			
		

> Berkeley officials said the building code would have required the balcony to hold 60 pounds per square foot, which in this case would work out to somewhere around 3,000 pounds — more than 13 normal-size people.¹


¹ http://www.aol.com/article/2015/06/16/police-5-dead-8-injured-in-balcony-collapse-in-california/21196597/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-sb-bb%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D1731462917
View attachment 1199


View attachment 1199


/monthly_2015_06/berkeley_crop.jpg.c0bfa0e4f73412a93dfc55871327d460.jpg


----------



## TheCommish

estimated deck size 8x5 feet = 40 sf

13 persons  @  150 lbs = 1950 total load / 40 = approximately 50 PSF

sleeping area live load 30 PSF, All other areas  live load 40 PSF Table 1607.1 2009 IBC

is this a problem before the joist rotted possibly, after the joist are compromised by rot most likely


----------



## conarb

The city said the loading was 60# per square foot.  A building "built in 2003" would have been governed by the UBC, *to determine which edition*  we would have to know the year application for the permit was made, probably 10 to 20 years prior to 2003.


----------



## Mark K

The design live load was not the problem.  Note the failure occurred a foot or more from the face of the wall.  At this point the bending moment was significantly less than the bending moment at the face of the wall.


----------



## Frank

Blowing up some of the below pics it appears that the balcony was constructed of cantilevered I Joists with waferboard webs.  These have very poor water resistance--will get puffy here in a couple months if left outside.  That combined with EIFIS type coverings that are notorious for leaking.  I would bet on water intrusion leading to rapid deterioration of the I Joists.  From how the webs are flaked-- I would suspect a shear failure not a bending failure.

These products are for dry use only from GP literature (unknown manufacturer but all are similar)

1 4–Limitations:

...

C. Wood I Beam joists are for use in covered, dry-use

conditions only (moisture content less than 16%).

The warrantee also excludes excessive moisture conditions--

CONDITIONS AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDIES Before GP will honor any claim under this warranty, the Qualified Owner must give GP written notice no later than thirty (30) days after

discovery of any defect and, in addition, must give GP an additional thirty (30) days thereafter to inspect the Covered Product(s) before any alteration or repair is made. If GP’s inspection

confirms that a manufacturing defect exists and has caused a problem, GP, at its sole option, will either repair the defective Covered Product, provide a replacement Covered Product, or

reimburse the Qualified Owner for the reasonable cost of repair or replacement of the defective Covered Product(s). These remedies are GP’s only obligation for and, in addition, are the Qualified

Owner’s sole and exclusive remedies for any breach of warranty.

Any defect in or damage to a Covered Product resulting in whole or part from the following conditions is NOT GP’s responsibility and is NOT covered by this warranty:

(a) settling or failure of the Structure’s foundation;

(b) failure to meet building code requirements for the roof or floor leading to excessive deflection, structural failure, and/or excessive moisture exposure due to the lack of proper

protection of the Covered Product or inadequate insulation, ventilation and/or vapor retarders;

© causes other than normal use conditions such as improper storage, handling, use, maintenance or installation; impact with other objects; earthquake, flood, fire, acts of God or

nature; or any other cause beyond GP’s control;

(d) exposure or handling that is not consistent with good practice in the building industry, including misuse and abuse and contact with or exposure to abnormal levels of moisture; or

(e) termites, mold, mildew, fungi, algae, moss, bacterial growth, decay, rot or similar conditions.


----------



## cda

Looking for the "fresh air rule" in ibc

former member of the city design-review committee that approved the project in 2001 told the San Francisco Chronicle that the balcony "was meant just to be a place where someone could stand out for bit, get a breath of fresh air. Not for something like 13 people."

Berkeley's building code requires an "open space" balcony to support 60 pounds per square foot, or about 3,000 pounds.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/06/17/berkeley-balcony-collapse-investigation/28879957/


----------



## ICE

cda said:
			
		

> former member of the city design-review committee that approved the project in 2001 told the San Francisco Chronicle that the balcony "was meant just to be a place where someone could stand out for bit, get a breath of fresh air. Not for something like 13 people."
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/06/17/berkeley-balcony-collapse-investigation/28879957/


I heard much the same on the radio.  The balcony was described as not intended for people to be on ..... it was there for looks.  I guess the doors were there if you wanted to get a closer look.  They also said that since the occupants generally change often (every three months) nobody was there long enough to notice the poor condition of the patio.  Where do they get this stuff?



> The wood broke off in the hands of inspectors, added Hom, who visited the site. That indicates major deterioration of the beams, known as joists.


It has been my experience that structural engineers will not provide flashing details at balconies.  So it falls on an architect.  Sometimes there is no architect.   I had a project several years ago that was replacing cantilevered balconies on two story apartment buildings.  There were no details for how to keep water out.....and they were replacing them because they were rotten from water getting in.  They were about 25 years old.

I wrote a correction asking for details to be submitted to our plan checker.  The contractor ended up being replaced several times and I asked each new contractor to provide approved details.  They all asked me what I wanted them to do.  Finally a contractor brought a detail to the office for review.  The plan checker called me to the counter and asked me what I wanted him to do.  Nobody wants anything to do with it.  I approved the detail. Then other inspectors took over.


----------



## conarb

This latest picture shows that the joists were neither I Joists nor PSLs, they appear to be sawn wood; however I've never seen rotted wood "shred" like this.  The stucco doesn't look like EFIS either, it looks like an EFIS final coat applied to some kind of backerboard.



			
				\ said:
			
		

> The city has said that the balcony was built to 1998 building code requirements. As part of the inspection process, the city building department would have to ensure these requirements were met during construction."For a structure such as the apartment, I would have expected the construction plans to include structural plans prepared by a professional licensed engineer," Kirby said. "The engineer would have determined the members needed to support the design load, and the inspector would have confirmed the engineer's design was being implemented."The zoning board also approved the project in 2002, which should have been the final step before construction, but the developer itself appealed those proposals, asking for less parking requirements and release from the city requirement to provide 20 percent of his units for affordable housing, Olson said. This brought the project to the City Council, which dismissed the appeal on March 23, 2004. The project received its final city inspection in January 2007, shortly before it opened.¹


The requirements for affordable housing always end up requiring corners be cut somewhere, somebody's got to pay for the losses on those units, the idea is that the rents of the market rate housing can go up to cover the losses on the affordable units but it doesn't always work out that way.¹ http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_28332627/berkeley-collapsed-balcony-originally-not-part-project-plans 


View attachment 1200


View attachment 1201


View attachment 1200


View attachment 1201


/monthly_2015_06/berkeley3.JPG.7c6dd67e472ed6a9e9ba811727818c1f.JPG

/monthly_2015_06/berkeley3.JPG.0a47f0573acf159a28814ea2b71ef0e7.JPG


----------



## Wayne

It looks like a panelized wall system like this one. http://www.advancedexteriorsystems.com/panelizedwallsystems.html


----------



## ICE

Finally a good picture.  The wood looks like it is still wet.


----------



## conarb

But leaks happen, I recently had a leak in one of these new bathroom floors where you have no shower curb that everyone wants, I pitched the floor for the 15' length of the room but some water ran uphill through the drainage mat and came out where the stone ended and the hardwood started.  While we were down under the house fixing that we found another leak in a stainless steel flashing where the house ended and the stone deck started, GSM flashing only lasts 20 to 30 years, the environmentalists are killing copper because of the fish, that leaves lead or stainless steel, the problem with stainless is that it should be welded and not soldered but field welding is rough and I let them solder joints in the field.  Fortunately that house has from 4' to 15' high areas under it that we could get to and catch things like leaks.

Airplanes have inspection plates all over them at crucial points, every airplane has to have at least one annual inspection where the plates are removed and a certified mechanic can look inside with a dental mirror, maybe in  sealed areas like these decks we ought to have inspection plates and have an inspector remove all plates and inspect for water leaks or other structural problems yearly.  If I couldn't have got under the house above those two areas could have leaked for years before anyone found them, or significant damage was done. That building has continuous soffit venting on three sides under those decks, it would seem that water had to leak through those vents and nobody noticed.


----------



## mark handler

Berkeley balcony collapse caused by dry rot, expert says

By Matthias Gafni and Thomas Peele Staff writers

http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_28325888/expert-dry-rot-caused-berkeley-balcony-collapse

BERKELEY -- The deadly collapse of a Berkeley apartment balcony early Tuesday morning resulted from water rotting the wood that held it to the building, not from the deck being overloaded, a structural engineer said Tuesday.

The deck showed a "deficiency in the design" said Tony Childress, owner of Texas-based Childress Engineering Services. He questioned the entire deck connection to the residential apartment building at 2020 Kittredge St.

Six people died, and seven others were seriously injured when the balcony broke early Tuesday morning.

Such accidents are not uncommon; numerous people were injured in a collapse in San Francisco in January and another in Oakland in September. Others have been reported across the country in the past few years.

Balcony collapses are "100 percent avoidable," said a lawyer who has represented victims.

"Due to the complete inadequacy of ... inspections around the Bay Area, you literally have ticking time bombs," said Niall McCarthy, a Burlingame lawyer who has represented victims in five Bay Area balcony collapses. "‹

"Balcony maintenance is a life-and-death issue," he said. "If your plumbing goes out, you have a headache and water in your building. If you don't maintain a balcony, somebody dies."

Childress said it was clear that water had reached the wood. "You can see the rotting," he said, after reviewing detailed photos of the damage with others in his failure-analysis firm at the request of the Bay Area News Group.

"This is a situation where a deficiency in the design allowed for moisture to seep in," he said. Childress' conclusion also raises questions about the city's review of the plans and construction.

City officials on Tuesday said it was too early in the collapse investigation to discuss its cause. The 176-unit building's planning documents were in storage and were not immediately available.

Building inspection reports from 2005-06, the years during which it was built, make no reference to balconies.

Neither the company that owns the $65 million building nor the one that manages it would discuss what might have caused the collapse Tuesday.

The 1998 California building standards in effect when the building was designed required the balcony to support 60 pounds per square foot, Childress said.

Under that standard, the roughly 50-square-foot balcony could have held about 3,000 pounds. Thirteen people, averaging 200 pounds each, standing on it at the same time would have added up to 2,600 pounds.

A new state building code effective Jan. 1, 2008, increased the load requirements for such an apartment building to 100 pounds per square foot, said Childress Engineering code consultant Ray Kirby.

Childress said the deck would not have been overloaded had it been filled shoulder-to-shoulder with people. The water intrusion doomed it, he said.

"The water infiltrated from the top down, and the wood snapped from the top down," the structural engineer said.

The building, called Library Gardens, is managed by South Carolina-based Greystar, a property management, real estate development and construction company.

In a statement Tuesday afternoon, Greystar said, "The safety of our residents is our highest priority, and we will be working with an independent structural engineer and local authorities to determine the cause of the accident."

When the balcony broke, it swung down against the building, hanging there like a hinge as the partygoers slipped off to the street below.

It later broke loose, falling on the next deck below, Childress said. Kirby called it a "progressive collapse."

"I don't like the way the steel frame design looks and how it was connected," Childress said.

To prevent the water infiltration, he said, flashing would need to go back several feet inside the wood structure.

Although the building is relatively new, a leak can lead to dry rot in 30 months or less, he said.

Balcony and deck collapses are not uncommon across the United States, with many attributed to poor maintenance, dry rot or termite damage combined with heavy loading.

"Balconies normally don't collapse on their own," said Robert Clayton, a Los Angeles lawyer who represents five students injured in a balcony collapse in Isla Vista next to the UC Santa Barbara campus in 2013.

A San Francisco attorney said he was struck by how new the building is.

"It is shocking that it failed so quickly. You would expect to see something like that with much older buildings," said Todd Walburg, a lawyer with Lieff Cabraser in San Francisco, which has represented victims in collapses.

Two other deck accidents within the past year injured Bay Area residents.

On Jan. 25, three people were seriously injured when a railing, later determined to be rotted, gave way at a San Francisco residence. The victims fell 20 feet.

And nine people were injured, three critically, in September when a deck collapsed at an East Oakland house.

That deck simply pulled away from the house and flipped over. A city building chief later said the deck may have pulled away from the house because it was too weakly attached.

Staff writers Thomas Peele and Leigh Pointinger contributed to this story. Contact Matthias Gafni at 925-952-5026. Follow him at Twitter.com/mgafni.


----------



## conarb

> "Due to the complete inadequacy of ... inspections around the Bay Area, you literally have ticking time bombs," said Niall McCarthy, a Burlingame lawyer who has represented victims in five Bay Area balcony collapses. "‹


There is no requirement for ongoing inspections, what's he recommending that we have a maintenance code requiring ongoing inspection and maintenance?



> "This is a situation where a deficiency in the design allowed for  moisture to seep in," he said. Childress' conclusion also raises  questions about the city's review of the plans and construction.


If Berkeley approved the plans using Bituthene for a waterproofing membrane shouldn't Berkeley be liable?



> "I don't like the way the steel frame design looks and how it was connected," Childress said.


I don't see a steel frame, I'm sure there are moment frames in the building but they are not evident here, maybe he's referencing the steel ornamental railings, but they didn't fail.



> To prevent the water infiltration, he said, flashing would need to go back several feet inside the wood structure.


He doesn't know what he's talking about, flashings never go back into the building, under french doors they go back the depth of the door frame, and good ones have a turned up lip at the interior edge.  At walls they go up the wall, not into the building.  Childress is an engineer , I've never had an engineer design or specify flashing, that's the architects' job. When they do dig out the plans I doubt we'll see them for liability reasons, somebody could go to jail here, there is no statute of limitations for manslaughter and a contractor was recently convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter in that Fremont case where the earth collapsed after the inspector red-tagged the site.

BTW, the contractor looks like a good contractor, his site says that their projects are all negotiated so there was no low bidding going on, there was an affordable housing requirement and corners are always cut to cover the losses entailed, but there may have been something worse: value engineering. *Segue Construction*


----------



## ICE

conarb said:
			
		

> If Berkeley approved the plans using Bituthene for a waterproofing membrane shouldn't Berkeley be liable?


It hasn't come out that the City plan checkers approved Bituthene as a deck waterproofing membrane.  Apparently an inspector did approve that since that is what is there.  If in fact that was the approved method, the builder may be exonerated.  The real culprit here is the inspector but as you know, the AHJ is mostly lawsuit proof.

Even if Bituthene was shown on an approved plan the inspector knows that a walk-on deck waterproofing requires an assembly which has an ICC ES report.

Going by just the pictures I can't say what was done.  Bituthene is visible but it seems unlikely that it was adhered to a deck.

It would make sense that the Bituthene was stuck to the wall but flashing should be present to prevent the bituthene from seeing water.

As rotten as that wood appears, the guardrail was the only thing holding the balcony to the wall.  The lumber didn't snap but rather it sluffed off as the deck became detached.


----------



## mtlogcabin

> The real culprit here is the inspector but as you know, the AHJ is mostly lawsuit proof.


An inspector does not inspect all the various assemblies that go into a buildings construction. An AHJ will determine what parts of a project warrant an inspection before a contractor can move forward with a project what parts do not "require" an inspection.

It is all based on available resources at the time.



> Even if Bituthene was shown on an approved plan the inspector knows that a walk-on deck waterproofing requires an assembly which has an ICC ES report.


Code section please


----------



## mtlogcabin

110.3 Required inspections.

The building official , upon notification, shall make the inspections set forth in Sections 110.3.1 through 110.3.10.

The code only requires specific inspection all other "required" inspections are a policy of the department

110.3.8 Other inspections.

In addition to the inspections specified above, the building official is authorized to make or require other inspections of any construction work to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this code and other laws that are enforced by the department of building safety.


----------



## cda

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> An inspector does not inspect all the various assemblies that go into a buildings construction. An AHJ will determine what parts of a project warrant an inspection before a contractor can move forward with a project what parts do not "require" an inspection.It is all based on available resources at the time.
> 
> Code section please


To me by the time an inspector puts their eyes on it, many many people have looked at the design, plans, construction

Yes an inspector should catch some stuff, but how about all the other people that have looked at a design, even before a nail was hammered ??????


----------



## Mark K

The problem is not the attachment of the balcony to the building.  Note the failure occurred a foot or more from the face of the wall.  I have seen no indication that there was anything wrong with the structural design.  Every thing points to rot not the number of people on the deck.

I do not believe that the problem will be solved by a code change.

It all comes down to the tone set by the developer who hires the architect and contractors.  I know of one condo developer who hires a waterproofing consultant and has him perform inspections during construction but then some, probably most, do not.


----------



## ICE

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Even if Bituthene was shown on an approved plan the inspector knows that a walk-on deck waterproofing requires an assembly which has an ICC ES report.
Click to expand...

Code section please

It must be ICE 101.  I have always required that.

What do you require?



> An inspector does not inspect all the various assemblies that go into a buildings construction. An AHJ will determine what parts of a project warrant an inspection before a contractor can move forward with a project what parts do not "require" an inspection.It is all based on available resources at the time.


I admit that I am not well aquainted with what inspections are explicitly required by the code.  I do make it a point to inspect waterproofing.


----------



## mark handler

NY Times blames the kids, "drunken parties"


----------



## jdfruit

This whole ugly mess should be used to better how we do business.

How many times do plan review staff get push back for asking a simple question on waterproofing for exterior decks?

How many timed do inspectors get push back in the field for requiring simple things like durable flashing materials or just get the effing stuff shingle lapped when installed?

There are so many deck failures across this country that can be compiled with pictures and death/injury stats to drive home why the so called "simple" stuff really matters. Poster designer available?


----------



## Inspector Gift

Point of clarification:   The recent NY disaster was a BALCONY collapse, not a deck failure.    Different type of failure.  Inadequate flashing and waterproofing are suspected as the primary cause of the collapse.


----------



## Sifu

Some real clowns giving useless and possibly dangerous advice today on Fox News.  Host again commented that the balcony was "decorative".  This is a situation where teachable moments could be occurring to the general public but instead they are handing out misinformation and excuses.  They could have had an engineer, architect or building code professional on, instead they had a couple of clowns telling us that we should clean our decks off and should use deck screws instead of nails to hold the ledger of the balcony to the building.....  Yes, "ledger of the balcony", but they didn't even use the word ledger, they said "board".  I was speechless.


----------



## mtlogcabin

Just like a plane crash is investigated to determine the cause so will this. In time the answers and report as to what failed and why will be given.

My question is will it be readily available that we all can learn from it and help educate the workers and contractors in our local areas.

Mark does an excellent job posting accessibility articles and court cases. Maybe someone here knows where or how to access this info when it is published.


----------



## mark handler

Inspector Gift said:
			
		

> Point of clarification:   The recent NY disaster was a BALCONY collapse, not a deck failure.    Different type of failure.  Inadequate flashing and waterproofing are suspected as the primary cause of the collapse.


*NO*

*Point of clarification: *

The New York Times apologized for "insensitive language" in its report that linked the accident to previous "drunken partying and the wrecking of apartments".

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33181475

The NY times was reporting on the Berkley failure NOT the NY failure


----------



## conarb

It will be interesting to see who did what here, during the permitting process, from 1999 to 2005, several changes were demanded by various city agencies and activist groups, as you can see those wrought iron balconies look way out of place on the building, somebody on the Design Review Commission thought the building looked too plain and the resolution was to add those artsy-craftsy balconies, maybe that came so late that the architect didn't even have any input on them, and the whole waterproofing issue just slipped through the cracks, I think I recall reading in one of these articles that the balconies weren't on  the original plans.


----------



## David Henderson

Just read an article stating that the Segue Construction has paid $605 Million since 2013 for water problems.


----------



## Sifu

That number might be going up, way up.


----------



## mark handler




----------



## steveray

Those aren't I-joist....(Big sigh of relief from the eng lumber people)


----------



## David Henderson

Correction should have said 6.5 Million not 605 mil


----------



## conarb

David Henderson said:
			
		

> Correction should have said 6.5 Million not 605 mil


Dave:

Have you gone by or talked to any Berkeley inspectors?


----------



## David Henderson

Not yet want to let the hype settle down, and get a better thought from them. Next week probably.


----------



## conarb

Dave:

I read that residents were complaining of water leaks all over the  building, roof and walls, it appears that the stucco is an EIFS finish  coat over a cement backer board.  Yesterday I visited with a  superintendent who is using a similar system here, what he's doing is  DensGlass (fireproofing),*R-Guard*  (waterproofing), cement backerboard, and EIFS finish coat, he has  discussed it with other superintendents and they think the R-Guard  waterproofing was left out, they also wonder how the DensGlass is not visible, how did they get their fire rating in downtown Berkeley?  Some questions you might want to discuss with them when you do talk to them.  For others here Dave's Albany is intertwined with Berkeley, hard to tell where one stops and the other starts, especially Solano Avenue.


----------



## Frank

Frank said:
			
		

> Blowing up some of the below pics it appears that the balcony was constructed of cantilevered I Joists with waferboard webs.  .


Upon later clearer pictures it is clear it is solid sawn lumber--way rotted and crumbly for that new of a building.


----------



## mark handler

Another thing missing: Joist bay ventilation.


----------



## conarb

From the first pictures I saw of the structure I said the deterioration of the joists didn't appear to be sawn lumber, I've seen lots of sawn lumber rot but have never seen it shred like this, I said I suspected PSLs, I've seen all kinds of failures with those, the most notable in the press was Seahaus in San Diego, where PSLs failed in an entire million dollar plus condo development.

I have no idea why our local paper is having the project reviewed by a Texas engineering firm, but today I read this:



			
				\ said:
			
		

> Childress Engineering Services structural engineer Kevin Liu reviewed the designs and photos, and said the structural design of the wood beams and joists met building codes then in effect.* He said the deck’s two major cantilever beams —1-3 ⁄ 4- inch by 11-7 ⁄ 8- inch each, at each side of the balcony* — appeared to fail, “and then the rest of the joists and beams went down with it.”Based on the designs, Liu said it was a typically designed cantilever balcony with a common framing structure.
> 
> “I can’t tell from the pictures if the designs were followed through,” he said. “An on-site structural evaluation is required for a further investigation.”
> 
> A record of city inspections of the building as it went up make no direct references to balconies or weatherproofing. The city spokesman said inspections of the balcony “would have happened at various times,” such as when lathing was installed, and it would have been part of a final inspection as well, but would not necessarily be described in the record the city released.
> 
> Documents show that city inspectors were sometimes frustrated and found much that needed to be corrected as the building rose. “I tried to do (an) inspection but (found too) many corrections. I gave up and told them to do a walk-through,” an unnamed inspector wrote. Another entry says that an inspection of the building’s plumbing was “a waste of time” because “nothing passed.”
> 
> On Thursday, the city said it was still finishing its investigation into the collapse, but it had ordered the removal of the lower balcony for structural reasons as well, and experts said that structure also suffered from water infiltration based on photos. ¹


"* He said the deck’s two major cantilever beams —1-3 ⁄ 4- inch by 11-7 ⁄ 8- inch each, at each side of the balcony"*, 1-3/4 x 11-7/8" are not sawn lumber sizes but are LSL and LVL sizes:



			
				\ said:
			
		

> 1.55E TimberStrand® LSL sizes:Widths: 1¾" and 3½"
> 
> Depths: 9¼", 9½", 11¼", 117⁄8", 14", and 16"
> 
> 2.0E Microllam® LVL header and beam sizes:
> 
> Width: 1¾"
> 
> Depths: 5½", 7¼", 9¼", 9½", 11¼", 117⁄8", 14", 16", 18", and 20" ²


I have personally never seen LVL failures, but I've seen PSLs fail on the jobsite before they are even installed from just atmospheric moisture. I have turned down projects with those things, I refuse to even give a price if I see them telling the owners to have the engineer replaced them with real wood.

This in no way detracts from the primary problem, water intrusion, but real wood wouldn't have failed that way and the kids would be alive.

¹ http://contracostatimes.ca.newsmemory.com/?token=tGQIuNt0dBw8TKl4qtAotrk5%2brJC3h4U&siteCode=CCT&product=eEditionCCT

²  http://www.woodbywy.com/trus-joist/microllam-lvl-headers/


----------



## ICE

> Documents show that city inspectors were sometimes frustrated and found much that needed to be corrected as the building rose. “I tried to do (an) inspection but (found too) many corrections. I gave up and told them to do a walk-through,” an unnamed inspector wrote. Another entry says that an inspection of the building’s plumbing was “a waste of time” because “nothing passed.”


This is strange.  First of all is that the inspector found too many corrections and gave up.  Then he put that in writing.  And then they saved it for posterity.  Another entry says that an inspection was a waste of time because nothing passed.

I don't know about you guys but I don't make notes on documents that will be retained and I toss out correction notices as soon as the job passes the final inspection.  The inspector that gave up must be lazy.  I have stopped inspections because of a lack of time but I go back the next day and pick up where I left off.  "Too many corrections"?....somebody please turn me loose.


----------



## Mark K

2012 IBC Section 1704.2.4 makes it clear that special inspectors should keep a record of the failed inspections.  I would expect that the building departments inspector would be expected to follow similar practices.  It is these inspection records that the plaintiffs will use to show that the contractor had quality problems which will make it easier to hold them liable for any problems with the quality of the work.


----------



## conarb

*Here are some architectural details of the deck attachment*, I'd reall like to find the structural drawings to see if those are LVLs that shredded and snapped.

Some interesting comments from a Berkeley paper:



> [*]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jane Hamber     •  2 days ago         How complicated would it have been for the management company and the  Berkeley inspectors to notice that there were apparently missing  flashings, (wall abutment and
> 
> fenestration flashing at the door sill, or what is called a pan) which apparently  caused the wood
> 
> to  rot?  Seeing the many dangerous potholes and the perilous nature of  many Berkeley streets, one might have a hard time trusting the  competence of the city of Berkeley when it comes to safety.
> 
> [*]  1
> 
> [*]•
> 
> [*] Reply
> 
> [*]•
> 
> [*]Share ›
> 
> [*]
> 
> [*]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abigail S     •  2 days ago         On the topic of Berkeley inspectors, my one experience a couple years  ago was an inspection for a newly installed tankless water heater in my  home. The inspector needed the instruction manual, which was fine. He  spent a VERY long time reading it, scratching his head, etc., etc., and  in the end required a few minor but annoying changes, such as adjusting  the distance between the exhaust pipe and the ceiling by half an inch,  etc. But THEN, a year later when I hired a plumber to come for something  else, the tankless caught his eye and he said: "Whoa, did you know the  intake and the outtake pipes on here are switched and the carbon  monoxide has been going inside your house?" WHAT?!? Then I discovered  that the overflow pipe had never been directed all the way outside, and  instead had stopped short in a storage room where I store family art ...  half of it ruined. Mea culpa for not checking, I know! I made the  mistake of trusting the inspector. When I called the City to calmly  explain what had happened, the supervisor just said: "Well, whaddya want  me to do about it?" Ugh. Point being that after that experience I have  NO faith in Berkeley's expensive inspection process. Though I hope, and  assume, there are some excellent inspectors on staff. But that's a leap  of faith from my standpoint, especially after this tragic incident.
> 
> [*]  2
> 
> [*]•
> 
> [*] Reply
> 
> [*]•
> 
> [*]Share ›
> 
> [*]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sebastian Urbas  Abigail S    •  21 hours ago         In the context to the balcony collapse I constantly read something  about inspectors. I am not sure, but I think inspectors aren't that  common here in Germany. At least not for the installation of a tankless  water heater. A plumber with a successful completed 3 year vocational  training in this field is allowed to install such a device. There is no  need for an inspection by an inspector.
> 
> •
> 
> Reply
> 
> •
> 
> Share ›
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guest42   Abigail S    •  2 days ago         That's interesting because I had a similar "awakening" during the  inspection of a tankless water heater installation.  I can't remember  how much the inspection cost but it was real money.  More than five  dollars.  But the "inspector" who showed up literally spent fifteen  seconds looking at the heater unit, while I stood there watching him  "inspect."  Then he signed off.¹


Looks the the fine citizens of The People's Republic of Berkeley are blaming the inspectors.

¹ http://contracostatimes.ca.newsmemory.com/?token=tGQIuNt0dBw8TKl4qtAotrk5%2brJC3h4U&siteCode=CCT&product=eEditionCCT


----------



## MASSDRIVER

Well, they are not built to the detail. The LVL's are there. They are are the perimeter cantilever. The other joists are wood. They were not supposed to penetrate the floor past the wall, in other words, they were not part of the cantilever system. That is evident from the blocking detail.

Our more astute members will notice a blatant omission. Guess what was never there?

.

.

.

The cement deck. It was never poured, at least not that I can tell. There is no stain on the bituthene.

So it leaked, then cracked and the deck folded flat against the wall. Its hanging there vertically. Then the balcony rail came loose and flopped upside down on top of the balcony below it.

I think the deck never got installed. Maybe wrong.

Brent.


----------



## conarb

What I'd like to know is the code section for ventilation in that deck, I don't know that there is one, I've always run soffit vents under decks like this but don't recall a code requirement.  This was permitted under the 1998 CBC which was based upon the 1997 UBC, in the current codes are there ventilation requirements for sealed joist spaces like this?  Ventilation requirements are for subfloors and attics but other sealed-up areas? I think where ventilation fell through the cracks here is that lathers have always installed it as part of their trade, this is not real stucco so there were no lathers on the project.

Code requirements are important here as opposed to good building practices over and above code, this project was required to have mixed use and affordable housing requirements, both huge losers from an income/investment standpoint so any and all corners have to be cut than can be cut to even make the project feasible.  In the court proceedings I think good building practices are going to become irrelevant and liability will be based upon strict code compliance on the parts of the architect and engineers and plan and spec compliance on the part of the contractor.

As you can see from the comments building inspectors are developing a huge image problem in the eyes of the public.


----------



## MASSDRIVER

Just running a soffit vent does nothing. it has to vent somewhere, and have airflow. I have spent the past year  tearing out just this sort of thing, and vent or no vent, if you can't get the air moving it makes no difference.

Brent.


----------



## ICE

conarb said:
			
		

> As you can see from the comments building inspectors are developing a huge image problem in the eyes of the public.


When I started doing the job of building inspector.....we were treated differently than we are treated today.  It's not like we were revered which is the polar opposite of what we get now.  There was a time when I could trust in people to do the right thing most of the time.  Now I expect them to lie, cheat and steal.

There are reasons for this.

An obvious reason for this decline is that the level of expertise on both sides of the counter has plummeted.  In too many instances there's a moron insulting an idiot.


----------



## conarb

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> Just running a soffit vent does nothing. it has to vent somewhere, and have airflow. I have spent the past year  tearing out just this sort of thing, and vent or no vent, if you can't get the air moving it makes no difference. Brent.


Much of what you are seeing is due to this irrational sealing for energy efficiency, that's not really the case here since the deck is outside the building envelope, in a building with funds available I would ring all 4 sides with soffit vents, this can get expensive when fire-dampened vents are required, when building affordable housing the architect should just leave all joists open and exposed so sealing becomes a non-issue.


----------



## ICE

Mark K said:
			
		

> 2012 IBC Section 1704.2.4 makes it clear that special inspectors should keep a record of the failed inspections.  I would expect that the building departments inspector would be expected to follow similar practices.  It is these inspection records that the plaintiffs will use to show that the contractor had quality problems which will make it easier to hold them liable for any problems with the quality of the work.


  Building departments are under no obligation to retain a record of failed inspections.  As far as special inspectors are concerned, I would think that they keep a record of all inspections, not just failed inspections.

Oh and the plaintiffs, well their lawyers and experts can make anything say whatever they want.  To think that an inspector's opinion means a whole lot in court is wrong.


----------



## cda

Huh???

Destroying public documents???

104.7 Department records. The building official shall keep official records of applications received, permits and certificates issued, fees collected, reports of inspections, and notices and orders issued. Such records shall be retained in the official records for the period required for retention of public records.

Does not say pass or fail?


----------



## ICE

cda said:
			
		

> Huh???Destroying public documents???
> 
> 104.7 Department records. The building official shall keep official records of applications received, permits and certificates issued, fees collected, reports of inspections, and notices and orders issued. Such records shall be retained in the official records for the period required for retention of public records.
> 
> Does not say pass or fail?


We do not have that in our code.  After ninety days we are down to a permit for residential and plans and permit for commercial.  All of the inspection notices are tossed whenever the inspector decides to toss them.

We have so many properties that the logistics would get in the way of saving all that paper.

Our policy is to not make statements that characterize the work.  We also refrain from making notes on permits.  Stuff like "mean dog", "mean owner", "too many corrections" "the inspection was a waste of time" have no relavence and should not be on a public document.


----------



## MASSDRIVER

Number of corrections or failures are no indication of quality. All that is happening is that you are meeting a standard. You can either meet it on the first try, or on the twelfth. The only thing of concern is that it was met, and the building dept. says the final product is copasetic. In the eyes of  codes and standards, attempts have no bearing on quality, just the final result.

It may cost the contractor in time and reinspection fees, but that's his problem.

Brent.


----------



## Mark K

The department should have a policy on retention of records.  This is not an issue that should be left to the inspectors.

Section 104.7 is in the California Building Code thus applicable to all jurisdictions in the state.  In any case it is a reflection of state law that applies in any case.

The City of Berkeley obviously does not find it a burden to retain the records for the life of the building.  Why would this be different for a jurisdiction in southern California?

Massdriver makes a point that few appreciate.  The point is that the building code inspection are acceptance criteria which are not necessarily an indication of quality of the building.  When you do not report the failed inspections it gives a false sense of the underlying quality of the construction.


----------



## MASSDRIVER

Mark K said:
			
		

> When you do not report the failed inspections it gives a false sense of the underlying quality of the construction.


Well, don't misunderstand my point    What I'm saying is that once you pass inspection, legally and technically, that quality of work is equal. To take correction notices and determine quality of work is innuendo. The ONLY thing that is important is that the inspection, either immediately or eventually, has passed.

Otherwise you are quite literally setting subjective standards, and implying that _eventually_ passing is not as good as _immediately_ passing.

In a legal setting, if an attorney attempted to tie up a quality standard to correction notices, that would be the strategy I attacked with. The authorities have established this standard, and I complied. See, right here? that's the inspector's signature. Yessir.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler

No “smoking gun” in Berkeley balcony design

http://www.berkeleyside.com/2015/06/19/no-smoking-gun-in-berkeley-balcony-design/


----------



## ICE

Mark K said:
			
		

> The City of Berkeley obviously does not find it a burden to retain the records for the life of the building.  Why would this be different for a jurisdiction in southern California?


The city of Berserkley is a drop in our bucket.  We would need another department just for retaining records.  What valid reason is there to keep correction notices that would make it worth doing?  In our case the number of individual records would be in the billions.

I wonder how the newspaper got a copy of the plans.  I can't imagine that the city gave them up.  But then it is Berkeley. They do save paper and they did share correction notices from a decade ago.


----------



## mark handler

ICE said:
			
		

> The city of Berserkley is a drop in our bucket.  We would need another department just for retaining records.  What valid reason is there to keep correction notices that would make it worth doing?  In our case the number of individual records would be in the billions.I wonder how the newspaper got a copy of the plans.  I can't imagine that the city gave them up.  But then it is Berkeley. They do save paper and they did share correction notices from a decade ago.


PER STATE CODE WE SCAN AND RETAIN ALL PLANS

The City of Berkeley released the architectural and structural renderings. They could have scanned then, as other departments do.


----------



## cda

ICE said:
			
		

> The city of Berserkley is a drop in our bucket.  We would need another department just for retaining records.  What valid reason is there to keep correction notices that would make it worth doing?  In our case the number of individual records would be in the billions.I wonder how the newspaper got a copy of the plans.  I can't imagine that the city gave them up.  But then it is Berkeley. They do save paper and they did share correction notices from a decade ago.


Take your dept is not electronic yet?


----------



## cda

So if no record of corrections kept than, there was never a problem found during construction?


----------



## mark handler

CA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE  SECTION 19850

19850.  The building department of every city or county shall maintain an official copy, which may be on microfilm or other type of photographic copy, of the plans of every building, during the life of the building, for which the department issued a building permit......

We do keep all correction sheets as a part of Public Record

Plan check and feild corrections


----------



## ICE

cda said:
			
		

> Take your dept is not electronic yet?


We are in the process of allowing electronic plans.  Contract workers have been scanning permit records for several years.


----------



## ICE

cda said:
			
		

> So if no record of corrections kept than, there was never a problem found during construction?


Why would you want a record of problems found during construction?  I just don't understand what purpose is served by access to ancient correction notices.

I know inspectors that never write corrections.  I write lots of corrections.  There are plenty of inspectors that fall between none and tons. So if judgments are to be gleaned from correction notices, every contractor that came my way was terrible and all that went before the inspector that doesn't write correction were great.

Correction notices are mostly worthless information.


----------



## mark handler

ICE said:
			
		

> Correction notices are mostly worthless information.


Part of public record, not up to you what is worthless information.

Talk with the AHJ Attorney


----------



## ICE

mark handler said:
			
		

> Part of public record, not up to you what is worthless information.Talk with the AHJ Attorney


It's not my policy.  It is the longstanding policy of the AHJ.


----------



## cda

ICE said:
			
		

> Why would you want a record of problems found during construction?  I just don't understand what purpose is served by access to ancient correction notices.I know inspectors that never write corrections.  I write lots of corrections.  There are plenty of inspectors that fall between none and tons. So if judgments are to be gleaned from correction notices, every contractor that came my way was terrible and all that went before the inspector that doesn't write correction were great.
> 
> Correction notices are mostly worthless information.


they have saved my a s         a few times during and after a building has been constructed

so when do you get rid of corrections notices, as soon as something has been fixed????


----------



## mark handler

Talk with the AHJ Attorney


----------



## ICE

cda said:
			
		

> they have saved my a s         a few times during and after a building has been constructed so when do you get rid of corrections notices, as soon as something has been fixed????


I dispose of correction notices after the job has passed final inspection.  So far I haven't needed a correction notice after the job is completed.

I know an inspector that thinks like you guys.  He has a computer spread sheet that has every address that he has ever been to.  There is a time and date with notes on what happened.  He writes few corrections and spends more time in the office than in the field.  It comes in handy when a contractor calls up wanting to know when was the last time he had an inspection.  When that happens, he's all over it and me, well all I can do is say I'm as clueless as you are.  The truth is that I can look at the file and get within a few days of when I was there last...and sometimes I do that.  But when I'm busy and I get the "when were you there and what happened" questions I wonder why this contractor doesn't know what's up with his job.  When I hear, "We're there corrections" I really start to wonder if this is the actual contractor....out loud too.

Do you guys save inspection request slips too?  And how about HERS reports?


----------



## mark handler

Correction notices are correspondence between a government representative and the public.

Who do you think you are Hillary Clinton?

You don’t destroy correspondence between a government representative and the public


----------



## ICE

What about email? Should we be recording conversations?  And Mark, it's not me doing it on my own....it is the policy of the AHJ.


----------



## mark handler

*Federal Rules of Civil Procedures were passed in December of 2006, all emails, communications, files, directives and requests that may be relevant to a current or future litigation cannot simply be deleted or overwritten. The data must be produced and thus it must be archived, because that's the law.i am not an attorney,  nor do I play one on tv. As you know, emails that are a part of your job, should be retained.  This is for your protection as much as anything else. It eliminates the he said she said.


----------



## cda

ICE said:
			
		

> What about email? Should we be recording conversations?  And Mark, it's not me doing it on my own....it is the policy of the AHJ.


Yes emails are subject to open records


----------



## cda

ICE said:
			
		

> What about email? Should we be recording conversations?  And Mark, it's not me doing it on my own....it is the policy of the AHJ.


.............


----------



## mark handler

*Back on topic*

Berkeley balcony collapse: Owners of building told of dry rot problems 20 months before tragedy

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/berkeley-balcony-collapse-owners-building-5925618

City inspections found evidence of problems in an apartment below where the celebration took place in September 2013, official city records from Berkeley in California, USA, have revealed

The owners of the building where six students plunged to their deaths after a balcony collapsed during a 21st birthday party were warned of dry rot problems 20 months earlier, it has emerged.

City inspections found evidence of problems in an apartment below where the the celebration took place, official city records from Berkeley in California, USA, have revealed.

A councillor from the US city where 13 people fell from the balcony at the Library Gardens apartment block this month has also claimed he has received several complaints about the condition of the building, the Irish Mirror reports .

Six people, including five Irish students, died in the tragedy, with others seriously injured.

Checks were carried out in September 2013 when officials spotted a number of signs of suspected dry rot.

A follow-up inspection two months later found the problems had been addressed and that a certificate of compliance had been issued to the building owners

Reports, obtained by RTE’s This Week programme, showed how letters were sent to the owners where housing officials noted the following red-flags: “floor surface or carpet is damaged creating a trip hazard or floor deck is dry rotted”.

But the documents don’t state whether or not the possible existence of dry rot had led to a thorough structural examination of the building.

City Council member Jesse Arreguin told the RTE programme that a number of tenants in the Library Gardens had approached him with concerns since 2010.

He said: “I received more issues, more complaints about this property than any other newer building in the downtown, even older buildings, property that was built over 50 years ago.

“The number of issues I’ve heard about this building, the condition of it, things breaking, the slow response of management to address these issues I would say was unique compared to other newer buildings.”

It has also emerged €5.5million has been paid out over defective balconies by the construction firm behind the Berkeley apartment block.

Segue Construction agreed to the vast sum after settling two separate law suits in the San Francisco bay area in the past two years.

It is the same firm that built the Library Gardens complex where six Irish students died.

Last year they paid out just under €3million to homeowners in the plush Pines at North Park Apartments in San Jose.

This was due to “water penetration” problems on dozens of balconies on the complex.

The lawsuit accused Segue of “failing to design the breezeways, private balconies and stairwells at the project in substantial compliance with all applicable local and state codes”.

In 2013, they paid out more than €2.5million to the owners of apartments in Millbrae, just west of the San Francisco bay area.

This case was brought because the balconies were deemed unsafe due to water damaging the structural integrity of the supporting beams.

Solicitor Thomas Miller, who represented the owners of the Millbrae premises, said the damage in those apartments was the same as what is being alleged in Library Gardens.

He added: “It was the exact same mechanism of failure as appears in Library Gardens.

"The waterproofing system failed. Water got into the structural wood framing for the balconies and dry-rotted out the wood members.”

Investigations into the cause of the balcony collapse from the fifth storey of the Library Gardens complex in Berkeley are continuing. Another balcony at the apartment complex has since been deemed “structurally unsafe” and a “collapse hazard”.

The owners have been ordered to demolish it. Two other balconies were sealed off or “red-tagged” as tests continue. Segue, which built the complex, said it will co-operate fully with any inquiry.

A spokesman said: “Our hearts go out to the families and loved ones of the young people who died or were injured in this tragic accident. We have offered our assistance and full co-operation to investigating authorities.”


----------



## mtlogcabin

> "Too many corrections"?.....


It is a judgement call that I leave for the inspector to determine

A homeowner we will spend as much time as needed to educate and explain why something needs to be corrected

A contractor with a stamped and sealed drawings who should know what he is doing! After a certain number of corrections an inspector is creating a punch list for a lazy superintendent and we do not do that.


----------



## cda

O



			
				mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> It is a judgement call that I leave for the inspector to determineA homeowner we will spend as much time as needed to educate and explain why something needs to be corrected
> 
> A contractor with a stamped and sealed drawings who should know what he is doing! After a certain number of corrections an inspector is creating a punch list for a lazy superintendent and we do not do that.


""""""A contractor with a stamped and sealed drawings who should know what he is doing! After a certain number of corrections an inspector is creating a punch list for a lazy superintendent and we do not do that.""""

So do you let them guess or just approve it?


----------



## mjesse

cda said:
			
		

> So do you let them guess or just approve it?


It can often be explained very simply "See these approved plans? Make it like that."

Or, "Have you ever seen a Code book? You'll find your answers in there."

But sometimes the point is "Maybe construction is just not your thing."


----------



## mtlogcabin

> So do you let them guess or just approve it?


We tell them they are not ready for an inspection. Call us back when the work is complete.

When you find multiple fasteners missing, or incomplete installations of windows, mechanical equipment, piping lacking support and any number of multiple issues it is a simple matter that they where not ready for an inspection.


----------



## ICE

> It is a judgement call that I leave for the inspector to determine


What do you consider to be a reasonable number of corrections before the inspection stops?

Many times I have been accused of picking on a contractor because of the large number of corrections.  It is usually over twenty.  The office managers and their supervisors have told me that I should stop at twelve.  They say that getting past twelve makes it look like I am piling on.  The preferred course of action is to give them the "not ready" correction and then hammer them again at the next inspection.  Now that really riles them up.  They don't know what's coming because, .....well they just don't know.

I have done that a few times.  You know that I take pictures.  I can write twelve during the inspection and get another ten from the pictures.  So I show up at the next inspection with the correction list already made out.  Now they are wondering why I didn't give them the list at the first inspection.  I tell them that I am following procedure and when you hit twelve I'm done.  So here's ten, let's find another two so I can get to the next inspection.  And while I'm here I need to take some pictures.

My procedure is no mater who it is I write corrections until I run out of corrections to write.

As far as explaining all of it....I do have a limit.  People with a bad attitude might be on their own.


----------



## cda

ICE said:
			
		

> What do you consider to be a reasonable number of corrections before the inspection stops?Many times I have been accused of picking on a contractor because of the large number of corrections.  It is usually over twenty.  The office managers and their supervisors have told me that I should stop at twelve.  They say that getting past twelve makes it look like I am piling on.  The preferred course of action is to give them the "not ready" correction and then hammer them again at the next inspection.  Now that really riles them up.  They don't know what's coming because, .....well they just don't know.
> 
> I have done that a few times.  You know that I take pictures.  I can write twelve during the inspection and get another ten from the pictures.  So I show up at the next inspection with the correction list already made out.  Now they are wondering why I didn't give them the list at the first inspection.  I tell them that I am following procedure and when you hit twelve I'm done.  So here's ten, let's find another two so I can get to the next inspection.  And while I'm here I need to take some pictures.
> 
> My procedure is no mater who it is I write corrections until I run out of corrections to write.
> 
> As far as explaining all of it....I do have a limit.  People with a bad attitude might be on their own.


I love baseball

So if I see three strikes of the same items, correction is check them all

In writing


----------



## ICE

cda said:
			
		

> I love baseballSo if I see three strikes of the same items, correction is check them all
> 
> In writing


I get solar companies calling for two to four inspections on one day.  I have been known to write a handful of corrections at the first address and tell them to do the same corrections at the rest of them.  I do like to be efficient with my time.

So write it once and expect them to apply it throughout the building.  That is pretty straightforward.   More than once I have written a correction for protecting plumbing or electrical only to find out that they did it only in the location we were in when I wrote the correction.  Yes they can be that lame.  I still write it just once and hope for the best.

For that matter you would think that if I write a correction for a company I wouldn't have to write it in the future on other jobs.  Think again.  They tell me Oh we forgot....we didn't know that you would be the inspector....

After a third failed inspection I had a home owner tell me that he wanted me to tie a red ribbon at each spot where the swimming pool shell steel was too close to the dirt.  He is an engineer.  He designs the interiors of airliners.  He was on the speaker phone of the city manager's office.  The city manager told him that perhaps he would like to take over the inspection duties and just call us for a final inspection.  The owner declined and we didn't hear from him again.


----------



## MASSDRIVER

I'll just leave the lumber here and you can build it the way you want.

Call me when you pass your inspection  

Brent.


----------



## conarb

So Tiger, let's suppose you were the Berkeley inspector assigned to the building on point, what could you have done to stop the problem?  I've asked here and apparently ventilation in the joists is not a requirement, apparently Bituthene with cap nails was approved for use as the membrane, what could you have done to have prevented this deck collapse?


----------



## JBI

Codes are, at their core, a collection of things that have gone wrong. Often horribly wrong. As a species we tend to take off running with new ideas, new methods, new things. (keep in mind I'm a flip phone kind of guy...) Disasters like this are the source of our codes. The forensics will tell in time what the exact issues were - was it the membrane? or the way it was installed? Was the balcony back pitched? At time of construction? or as a result of other building issues? Were all components installed in accordance with manufacturer's instructions and applicable listings or approvals? Was it simply (gasp!) a bad design?


----------



## ICE

Well Dick, for starters I would not allow Bituthene with cap nails.    I require an approved assembly.  In the time frame that this was built it might have been an ICBO ESR.  I stated that in post #35.  Mtlogcabin challenged me on that and asked for a code section which I don't have.  Well there might be a code section but I'm not going to look for it and nobody else stepped up or agreed with me.

It has come up less than a dozen times in my experience.  I seldom have a job with an actual architect.  It is usually a draftsman, engineer and contractor.  All sorts of ideas are floated on how to build a balcony.  Everything from marine plywood and paint to built-up roofing.  Plan checkers aren't good at catching this.

I give them a correction to find a method and material that is approved by ICC with an ES report so that we know how to put it all together.  I am not aware of any that have leaked but then I probably wouldn't be told if one did leak.  I do know that the various Jerry rigged BS that people wanted to try would have failed.  It is not cheap to do it right.

As far as ventilation goes, Brent is most likely correct that unless there is a way to get air moving not much is accomplished.  I always require vent but perhaps not enough.

Before people start with the give me a code section replies let me say that the alternative to doing what I do is to do nothing.  That results in failures like what has happened here.  Yes I know that in this case there was an architect that designed it.  My answer to that is can the architect give his design an ICBO ESR?


----------



## conarb

Another factor is that this project was fast tracked, 1999 to permit issuance in 2005, most of that time is spent in Design Review and Planning Commission, these balconies were added at the end.  Cities give preference to mixed use and affordable housing, getting taxes and housing the poor, it may be that not enough time was spent on construction documentation.  I read in one of the articles that LP²A out of Sacramento did the plan checking, in 1998 I was trying to get a home through LP²A in Pleasanton, they were rough, rejecting everything the structural engineer provided, I'd get that cleared up then they'd reject everything the architect provided, silly things like the title block being off place by a ¼" on the plans, requiring another month of back and forth, when I finally got them through the City of Walnut Creek proceeded to tear apart what LP²A had done, in talking to one of the city plan checkers they were deliberately finding fault with LP²A's work because they didn't want to loose the work in house.  Shortly after this LP²A was bought out by Bureau Veratas, that may have something to do with it too, but so far I've read nothing about Bureau Veritas in the press.

Let's face it, if Design Review had not required the balconies be added this tragedy would have never happened, not even considering the fact of life that when the city adds an architectural requirement that money has to come from somewhere in the budget, and corners are usually cut since the construction budget is set in stone when the financial commitments are made.  *BlackRock* made the takeout financing, I assume they made the commitment long before to get the construction financing, if the developer went to BlackRock and said: "The city is making us add balconies, we need $50,000 more.", what are the chances BlackRock is going to say: "Gee what pretty balconies, we will go  to our investors and get the extra money for you."?


----------



## ICE

It's a shame that when Segue Construction lost it's second lawsuit for failed balconies somebody didn't think, "We should look into every balcony that this company has built".  The same can be said for the architects involved.


----------



## Mark K

If they had not had the balconies there would still likely have been problems with waterproofing and flashing which would have lead to rot.

When the code does not provide specific requirements all the inspector can do is require that the building be built in accordance with the approved construction documents.  Neither the code, the building department, nor the inspector can solve all problems.  The deaths are not acceptable but then we as a society accept many more deaths each year.

When an inspector requires something not required by the code he is acting illegally and the owner would be within his rights to tell him to pound sand.  It is regrettable that this doe not happen more often but most owners find it more convenient to pay the extortion.


----------



## conarb

ICE said:
			
		

> It's a shame that when Segue Construction lost it's second lawsuit for failed balconies somebody didn't think, "We should look into every balcony that this company has built".  The same can be said for the architects involved.


Balconies have always been prone to leakage, this proclivity was vastly increased in 1978 with the elimination of lead on solder. In 1982 I was building a home with a large balcony over a ballroom, the sheetmetal man was soldering the deck to wall flashing and the roofer was no his way to hot mop the balcony, I started at one end of the balcony and started pulling on the solder joints and a few came apart, after some argument with him he called his boss and the sheetmetal contractor came over and started screaming at me for pulling his joints apart, a was maintaining that if I could pull them apart that they would eventually come apart and I'd have leaks into the ballroom below, to fix the leaks would cost lots of money removing deck stone and attempting patches in the hot mopping.  I went down to SMACNA's local offices complaining about the ability of sheetmetal workers to solder anymore, he explained that the problem was twofold, 1) The EPA had made them remove the lead from solder, and 2) because of the emergence of sealants sheetmetal men had lost the ability to solder, especially on vertical joints.  I've never completely solved the problem no matter how hard I try, the last house I built I specified stainless steel flashings, stainless should really be welded and not soldered but welding stainless in the field is difficult. The best I can do is keep the weep screed up as high as is aesthetically acceptable, when the roofer hot mops have him turn up as high as possible, test everything and then pray. Bad (read cheap) contractors don't even solder, they use that sealant that if it works at all dries out in an average of 7 years.  In that last house I did have a leak during the second rain season on an outside corner where a deck to wall flashing wrapped aound the corner, I did have to remove and replace flamed limestone but it was over a basement below so there was no damage below.

Maybe the Developer, architect, and Segue left balconies off the project because they didn't want the liability of attempting to waterproof with today's products/skills, so maybe the real fault lies with the city's Design Review Commission that forced them to add balconies on low cost housing?


----------



## pete_t

Grace's 2007 instructions required Bituthene to be self-adhered don't know about earlier.

View attachment 1202


Bituthene 2000 spec.pdf

Bituthene 2000 spec.pdf


----------



## conarb

Interesting that Bituthene's installation instructions require flood testing, I've never installed Bituthene on a horizontal surface so I didn't know that, now the question is is that also in the ES Report? I cannot copy and past the information since the PDF is secured, but under "Flood Testing" it calls for 2" of water for 24 hours.

I guess Tiger could require flood testing on those decks, did the city require an ES Report or Installation instructions on the Bituthene membrane? If they didn't there could be some malfeasance here and the city could be liable for a share of the damages. I provide the field inspector a 3" ring binder with all applicable ES Reports, manufacturers' installation instructions, and special inspection reports.


----------



## Wayne

another deck failure

I'm a WR Grace approved inspector and I've inspected miles of it here at McCarran Airport.  If you want Grace to warranty it you'll need it inspected by them or an approved third party and yes flood testing is required for horizontal surfaces although the detail doesn't look like the Grace approved one that I remember.

Grace System

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=V1mJVbbvF8eqNvuThOgM&url=https://grace.com/construction/en-us/Documents/BIT-450D-Deck%2520Sys.pdf&ved=0CB4QFjAB&usg=AFQjCNHn-VxnWDJTI1vIG38vCYhyN_EXRw&sig2=YEgQXUwoxi_VNC0LsAIChQ

.


----------



## mtlogcabin

> Mtlogcabin challenged me on that and asked for a code section which I don't have. Well there might be a code section but I'm not going to look for it and nobody else stepped up or agreed with me.


I will start by using  the IBC 2012 since that is the current and easiest to access

2304.11.5 Supporting member for permanent appurtenances.

Naturally durable or preservative-treated wood shall be utilized for those portions of wood members that form the structural supports of buildings, balconies, porches or similar permanent building appurtenances where such members are exposed to the weather without adequate protection from a roof, eave, overhang or other covering to prevent moisture or water accumulation on the surface or at joints between members.

So non pressure treated supporting members need protection from the elements

ROOF ASSEMBLY (For application to Chapter 15 only). A system designed to provide weather protection and resistance to design _loads_. The system consists of a roof covering and roof deck or a single component serving as both the roof covering and the roof deck. A roof assembly includes the roof deck, vapor retarder, substrate or thermal barrier, insulation, vapor retarder and roof covering.

LOADS. Forces or other actions that result from the weight of building materials, occupants and their possessions, environmental effects, differential movement and restrained dimensional changes. Permanent loads are those loads in which variations over time are rare or of small magnitude, such as dead loads. All other loads are variable loads (see also “Nominal loads”).

Yes the code can be applied to require a roof assembly to protect non-pressure treat wood balconies.

ICE

Sometimes in our gut we know we are correct and having to back it up with a code section seems ridiculous when it is so obvious to us the installation is wrong.


----------



## conarb

\ said:
			
		

> ......shall be utilized for those portions of wood members that form the structural supports of buildings, balconies, porches or similar permanent building appurtenances *where such members are exposed to the weather* without adequate protection.......


Mountain Man:

I don't see your interpretation, those members were covered and not "exposed to the weather".


----------



## ICE

Mark K said:
			
		

> If they had not had the balconies there would still likely have been problems with waterproofing and flashing which would have lead to rot.When the code does not provide specific requirements all the inspector can do is require that the building be built in accordance with the approved construction documents.  Neither the code, the building department, nor the inspector can solve all problems.  The deaths are not acceptable but then we as a society accept many more deaths each year.
> 
> When an inspector requires something not required by the code he is acting illegally and the owner would be within his rights to tell him to pound sand.  It is regrettable that this doe not happen more often but most owners find it more convenient to pay the extortion.


For some reason I thought that you were an architect but Shirley you must be an engineer.

You spout off about the big bad inspectors so often that you appear to have a vendetta.  You don't understand the limits of what an inspector can do.  You are even further in the dark with your pronouncements on what an inspector can't do.

We aren't playing Chinese checkers and here are the rules.  We are engaged in the imperfect enterprise of construction.  If I see something that my mind tells me is wrong, suspect, or just a little off I will ask questions.  If I am not convinced at some point that it is not a problem, well then you have a problem.

I have said that I would require a listed assembly for a deck surface. You consider that to be extortion and would tell me to go pound sand.  Well check it out, if that were your building it would have vacancies.

An inspector is the last person with veto power that sees construction before it is covered up and occupied.  There's no room for you to get your nose out of joint because an inspector looked at your best effort and said, "Wait a minute, tell me about this....."

I have written this not for you Mark K.  It is for all of the inspectors out there.  Don't fall for the naysayers that want to put you in a box and slap your fingers every time you start to crawl out.

The way I see it, it comes with the job.  Had I been the inspector on the Library Gardens apartments there would have been different notes in the file and the balcony would not have turned into a rotten scab.

Somewhere in all of this a lawyer said that the entire SF Bay Area has lousy inspections.  Segue Construction has lost several lawsuits over crap construction.  There were inspectors there too.  What did they not do?  Why didn't they stop this dead in it's tracks?  Did they think, "It's right there on the approved plans, Bituthene" "Slap it down and stick it with a fork 'cause it's done".

When I looked at the installation instructions for Bituthene my first thought was, "Wow, they're gonna need drawings to go with this". And it's not the one that they have.  Depending on who I was dealing with, I might have required a deputy inspector.  Well you inspectors, ask yourself if you would do that.  Could you do that?

Don't ask anyone but yourself.  You really are out there all alone.  There's nobody that will have your back.  Get used to it.


----------



## mtlogcabin

conarb said:
			
		

> Mountain Man:I don't see your interpretation, those members were covered and not "exposed to the weather".


Where they covered with a code compliant material and installed accordingly (ESR report)  is the question. I believe an inspector could have asked for a "roof assembly" system for the balcony. This balcony did not have a system designed to provide weather protection or it was installed incorrectly. Is it a design flaw, Architects error or in installation incorrectly, Contractor error. That is how I would look at it as a member of the jury


----------



## mark handler

Early renderings show that the 5th story balcony wasn't part of the original plans and only one on the fourth floor, the fourth floor balcony indicates the balcony was meant to be functional, showing a large group of people standing on the deck. The 5th story balcony is the one that failed
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Was it built as a canopy and altered during construction?

View attachment 1203


View attachment 1203


/monthly_2015_06/20150619_105635_IMG_0231.jpg.964494c39d9f0ca2e9c5f75bbee770d8.jpg


----------



## Mark K

mtlogcabin

Yes the code requires that the wood be protected but it does not say what material can be used, how it must be detailed, and how it can be installed.  So what is the basis for the inspector to reject anything based only on the code unless there is nothing that could be claimed to provide the protection.  The inspector could reject something that did not agree with the construction documents but if the construction documents were vague or  incomplete the inspector cannot invent requirements to "fix" the problem.

Assuming that the drawings are perfect and the problem is only with the installation, which is not likely, what building department provides the continuous inspection that would be necessary to address all the field problems?  It is easy in retrospect for an individual to say that he would have caught a problem but let us be real.

Yes there are problems but the building code does not address all the issues and the inspector is not in a position to prevent all problems.  An inspector needs to know a lot of facts to do his job but there is no way that an inspector, or anyone, to be an expert with respect to all aspects of all of the systems that must be inspected.


----------



## steveray

Here is walls, I am sure I can find similar for floors.....

1403.2 Weather protection. Exterior walls shall provide the building with a weather-resistant exterior wall envelope. The exterior wall envelope shall include flashing, as described in Section 1405.4. The exterior wall envelope shall be designed and constructed in such a manner as to prevent the accumulation of water within the wall assembly by providing a water-resistive barrier behind the exterior veneer, as described in Section 1404.2, and a means for draining water that enters the assembly to the exterior. Protection against condensation in the exterior wall assembly shall be provided in accordance with Section 1405.3.

SECTION 1503 WEATHER PROTECTION

1503.1 General. Roof decks shall be covered with approved roof coverings secured to the building or structure in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Roof coverings shall be designed and installed in accordance with this code and the approved manufacturer's instructions such that the roof covering shall serve to protect the building or structure.

1503.2 Flashing. Flashing shall be installed in such a manner so as to prevent moisture entering the wall and roof through joints in copings, through moisture-permeable materials and at intersections with parapet walls and other penetrations through the roof plane


----------



## mark handler

The Exterior wall nor the wall envelope failed. The balcony is an appendage to the wall.


----------



## conarb

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Where they covered with a code compliant material and installed accordingly (ESR report)  is the question. I believe an inspector could have asked for a "roof assembly" system for the balcony. This balcony did not have a system designed to provide weather protection or it was installed incorrectly. Is it a design flaw, Architects error or in installation incorrectly, Contractor error. That is how I would look at it as a member of the jury


Mountain Man:

Were I the contractor on this job and saw that detail I would have issued a RFI to the architect copying the owner and lender stating that I have never used Bituthene as the waterproofing membrane under Gypcrete and questioned it's appropriateness. I would request the latest Bituthene ICBO Report as of the date the plans were stamped as received showing Bituthene with the cap nails (and flood test if that report included it).  If the architect then supplied that ICBO Report I would have then issued another letter with an Informed Consent letter with a Hold Harmless and Indemnification Agreement attached requesting that all parties sign it.  If they complied I would include the Hold Harmless and Indemnification along with the ICBO Report in my 3" ring binder and show the field inspector.  As a matter of fact I have never had to go that far, when I issue the RFI the architect usually calls me wanting to know what I recommend, I would inform him that I preferred a 4 ply hot mopped membrane of better a copper pan and give an extra quote for each alternative, the architect would probably have approved the cheaper alternative, the hot mopped membrane, and signed my extra order. Of course I've been known to drive architects nuts with my RFIs and paperwork, they know I'm throwing the liability for their choices back at them, by the same token building inspectors like me because of all the paperwork I supply, I just tell them to stick in in their file, it's there to protect all of us.

All of this assumes the deck is leaking, from interviews with tenants who said the building was leaking through the walls and windows there is a strong possibility that the exterior finish system is leaking all over that building, if that's the case water could be coming down behind the flashing and into that deck area, or maybe both conditions are leaking, the real problem is giving preferential treatment to mixed use and affordable housing.


----------



## ICE

Mark K said:
			
		

> The inspector could reject something that did not agree with the construction documents but if the construction documents were vague or  incomplete the inspector cannot invent requirements to "fix" the problem.


Think about that for a moment.  If there are vague or incomplete documents, that's all we can ask for?  If it is there on a piece of paper we can't question that?


----------



## steveray

mark handler said:
			
		

> The Exterior wall nor the wall envelope failed. The balcony is an appendage to the wall.


BUILDING. Any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy.

The building weatherproof envelope failed. Or was improperly designed and/or installed....


----------



## mark handler

The building envelope did not fail, the balcony, a part of the building but not envelope, failed.

A building envelope ends at the wall plane, the building includes the balcony.


----------



## steveray

mark handler said:
			
		

> The building envelope did not fail, the balcony, a part of the building but not envelope, failed.A building envelope ends at the wall plane, the building includes the balcony.


Because it was not properly protected from the weather, nor preservative treated, nor naturally durable. The thermal envelope may end at the wall plane...The weather resistive envelope ends wherever it needs to...


----------



## MASSDRIVER

Some things are crap.

Even ICE can look at it and a little ember will imperceptibly smolder a little in his head and *poof* a little idea; "is that...crap? Jesus on a popsickle stick, I think it _is_ crap."

So since we are all part of the system, it is incumbent on us to use the system to our advantage. If I'm constructing something with a product that I think may be craptastic, and then an inspector writes a correction or voices a concern that I might just be riding the Fail Train, I will then use that inspectigator for my own evil ploy.

That gives me backing from a certified expurt ( because Iv'e only been building my entire adult life and don't know my a55hole from a hole in the ground) and now my concern becomes "legit".

Most builders will fail in this respect because the only thing you can see is the next draw to cover all your expenses. You sometimes have to take it the shorts in the short run to keep you out of trouble in the long haul.

That's what you get with this balcony. Some superly duperly expurt drew that on paper and the sheep bleeted it into existence. 5 people died as a result (from Berserkly, so, you know...whatev) and now everything comes into question.

That design will fail. There are other perfectly fine tried and true methods to accomplish the same things, and who knows why they weren't used. But they were not.

But here is the difference; The builder will take the blame and pay. No head building official, plan checker, architect, material manufacturer, inspector, office manager, or construction worker is culpable. But they are all equally at fault, as well as the idiots that decided to pack the deck with bodies. But they already paid for their ignorance.

So I will back ICE, and commend him sticking his scrawny neck out to possibly avert disaster, whether the affected party wants it or not.

Brent.


----------



## Sifu

I have had many inspections that I didn't feel good about and asked for more information.  The inspector is (hopefully) employed to use his knowledge and experience in the execution of his job.  Mark K is correct, the job of an inspector does not include inventing solutions.  But his job does include the ability to not approve something that in his opinion is suspect.  I see the job as pretty simple:  an inspector observes and compares, either to code or approved plans.  Many times I have had a contractor say "you are going to make me do this?"  To which I always answer that I do not have the authority to make anybody do anything.  At the end of the day I really only control one thing- my signature.  I see it as the responsibility of the contractor, designer or engineer to properly demonstrate that the installation will function as the code and/or plan intends.  If they can't convince me I can't put my signature on it.  It is still unclear as to who or how the balconies were approved.  Did they ever actually pass inspection or did the "too many corrections" type of inspections get lost in the shuffle of multiple different inspectors looking at multitudes of different things?  That is one huge battle I face a lot on big projects.


----------



## conarb

*Today's report* which says nothing, if the city were to attempt to go further they would be more involved in the litigation.  It does say the decking was two layers of OSB and OSB turns to mush when it gets wet, but eventually plywood would have failed too, they talk about requiring ventilation so I guess the code doesn't require it, just good building practice but nobody is going to pay for good building practices if affordable housing is involved.


----------



## jdfruit

The whole mess is a tug-of-war from discretionary approvals at the planning stages then on to the construction documents with Owners crying "too much" when the Architect tells them the plan review is unreasonable to the builders crying about "too much regulation" and unreasonable inspection requirements. With all the people involved and no one made a case for getting reliable weather resistant construction it makes me wonder about the "system". If inspectors like ICE are the last resort to correct epic failures; look for a lot more in the future, there are very few like ICE. Time to buck up cowboys, across the whole rodeo.


----------



## mark handler

Berkeley joins criminal probe into balcony collapse

By Jaxon Van Derbeken Updated 6:01 pm, Wednesday, June 24, 2015












After declaring their probe into last week’s deadly apartment-balcony collapse finished, Berkeley authorities have done an about-face and joined a criminal investigation led by Alameda County prosecutors, The Chronicle has learned.

Berkeley authorities made the decision hours after city officials said Tuesday that the laminated-wood supports holding up the fifth-floor balcony at 2020 Kittredge St. had become “severely dry rotted” before the collapse. The 176-unit apartment building was completed just seven years ago.

Teresa Drenick, spokeswoman for Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O'Malley, said Wednesday that Berkeley police were taking part in an investigation, and that “in light of Berkeley’s statement yesterday that they had closed their investigative process, the district attorney’s (office) will be the lead agency.”

She said Berkeley police have retained the failed balcony as evidence.

Berkeley officials had said the city was not trying to determine how the balcony was damaged by moisture. They also said police were not investigating whether any crimes had contributed to the June 16 collapse, which killed six people and injured seven who had been celebrating a visiting Irish student’s 21st birthday.

Instead of conducting a forensic examination of the collapse, Berkeley officials said, they were focusing on reforms that would effectively ban the use of laminated wood on balconies in multiunit buildings by requiring pressure-treated wood or galvanized metal for supports. They are also seeking to force owners of such buildings to pay for regular inspections.

Turnaround on probe

Berkeley’s position on a criminal probe changed late Tuesday, about the time the district attorney’s office said it was looking into the failure, sources familiar with the case told The Chronicle. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case publicly.

A spokesman for the city, Matthai Chakko, did not return calls Wednesday seeking comment.

Among those who could come under investigation are the apartment building’s main contractor, Segue Construction Inc. of Pleasanton, and the company that applied a waterproof membrane for the balcony’s laminated-wood support beams, R. Brothers Inc. of San Jose. Independent experts who have examined photos of the damage for The Chronicle have said the membrane appeared to have been torn, possibly during construction.

The contractors have not responded to questions about how the building was constructed. R. Brothers did not immediately comment Wednesday on the probe, and efforts to reach Segue were unsuccessful.

The city had planned to return the destroyed balcony to the building’s owner, BlackRock Inc. of New York. Authorities also ordered the removal of the rot-damaged balcony beneath the collapsed structure, and left it with the private contractor that took it down the day after the collapse. With authorities opening an investigation, the city intends to get the second balcony back, sources said.

Evidence destroyed?

Tom Miller, an attorney who represents litigants in construction defect cases, said he was surprised that the city had planned to give the balconies back to the owner in the first place. He also questioned Berkeley’s decision to remove the second balcony, saying it may have destroyed potential evidence.

“Preserving the evidence is of utmost importance in such a case,” Miller said. “The intersection between the building and the cantilevered deck is the likely source of the water — now that they have cut it out, to try to reconstruct the actual conditions will be almost impossible.”

Crucial to the probe

Miller said the crucial elements in the probe are determining the source of the water infiltration and the contractor responsible for the problem.

City officials said the second balcony had been extensively photographed, both before and during its removal. Taking the balcony off the building was important for public safety, they said.

Critics, however, said the balcony could have been braced and made off-limits, and that photos taken before a police investigation was launched were not the same thing as firsthand observation.

“The (waterproofing) membrane was cut through in order to remove it from the building. That was done apparently before any leak testing was done,” said Bernard Cuzzillo, a Berkeley mechanical engineer who studies why structures fail. “It would be analogous to finding out why a tire leaks after the tire has been chopped in half right at the point of the suspected leak. You can’t test the leak now.”

The damage apparent from the second balcony suggested it was not as significant a collapse hazard as the failed deck, Cuzzillo said.

“It had enormous evidential value while undisturbed,” Cuzzillo said. “Now that value has been compromised to an undetermined extent.”

Any evidence damage would complicate the task of pressing a criminal case. The only such case in recent years in California, experts said Wednesday, was one brought by then-San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan after the 1996 collapse of a Pacific Heights fourth-floor deck, which killed one woman and injured 14 people.

Manslaughter alleged

Hallinan accused the Franklin Street apartment building owner, Randall Nathan, of manslaughter for allegedly undermining the deck’s structural integrity by ordering that a support beam be moved without securing a permit. A jury deadlocked on the main charge, but convicted Nathan of two misdemeanors.

Nathan ultimately was ordered to pay $13.5 million stemming from lawsuits in the case. Niall McCarthy, an attorney who represented some of the victims, said he has brought civil cases in other collapses, but that authorities typically have “zero interest in prosecution.”

“They are tough cases to make,” McCarthy said. “You have to have some sort of notice of the defect,” and proof that a defendant ignored the warnings.

Jaxon Van Derbeken is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: jvanderbeken@sfchronicle.com


----------



## cda

Sounds like "spoliation" law suit against the city!!


----------



## JPohling

Anyone see any laminated wood supports?


----------



## conarb

JPohling said:
			
		

> Anyone see any laminated wood supports?


I would speculate that the two side joists are LVLs and the center joists are sawn wood. On the front page of today's local paper:



			
				\ said:
			
		

> OAKLAND -- Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O'Malley on Thursday warned that involuntary manslaughter charges may be pursued against anyone found criminally negligent in last week's balcony collapse that killed six people and injured seven others in Berkeley.While O'Malley wouldn't discuss whom would be a focus of the investigation, *those liable could include city inspectors, the general contractor, subcontractors, property owner and management company, according to legal experts.* Meanwhile, the state agency that oversees contractor licenses announced it has launched a probe into general contractor Segue Construction after becoming alarmed by the Pleasanton-based company's troubled track record.
> 
> Speaking during a packed news conference about her office's criminal probe into the tragedy, O'Malley said the victims, survivors and their families "deserve to have this case thoroughly and exhaustively investigated. We will do so, and that is the pledge I make from my office." The district attorney announced Wednesday, after personally calling and alerting victim families, that her office would investigate the tragedy, 24 hours after Berkeley officials said they had concluded an investigation into the balcony collapse and would not pursue a criminal case. ¹


Be interesting to see what happens with the DA, if city inspectors are liable what about the ICBO that wrote the codes requiring only a ¼" drop from finish floor to decks?  What about ICBO Reports that approved the engineered wood?  ICBO is (I guess) no longer in existence but did the ICC take over the assets and liabilities of the ICBO?  If the sealant in the joints of the flashing were the source of the leaks, what about the liability of the sealant manufacturer(s)?   This building was fast tracked because it contained mixed use and affordable occupancies, it's a known fact that AHJs do everything they can to facilitate these uses and employ a lower level of scrutiny than they do for normal projects.

¹ http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_28380024/da-may-pursue-involuntary-manslaughter-negligence-charges-in-berkeley-balcony-collapse


----------



## ICE

conarb said:
			
		

> This building was fast tracked because it contained mixed use and affordable occupancies, it's a known fact that AHJs do everything they can to facilitate these uses and employ a lower level of scrutiny than they do for normal projects.


I can't speak about what happens with a project before it gets to me but I can't imagine that inspectors cut corners to speed projects along.


----------



## mark handler

A third US investigation has been opened into the Berkeley balcony collapse in which six students died

The latest investigation, by the Constructors State License Board (CSLB), follows twin civil and criminal investigations launched by Alameda County District-Attorney Nancy O'Malley.

If a negative finding is made it could result in the revocation of the firm’s licence to operate in the state, he added.

The panel would also examine the builder’s previous work to determine past performance, Mr Lopes said.

In one case the panel will review, Segue paid $3.4 million to settle claims brought by a homeowners association of construction defects at another Bay Area apartment complex in 2013.

These include claims the balcony was sloping before the collapse - a clear indication of a potential structural problem.

This is included in eye-witness testimony from one of the Irish students, in the US on a J1 student visa, who was at the party when the 13 youngsters fell to the concrete pavement below.

The latest Alameda submissions also include claims that other residents of the Library Gardens apartments had complained of water-leak problems in the complex as far back as 2010.

RLS said the Alameda County District-Attorney's involvement was both appropriate and warranted.

The Donohoe family particularly welcomed the fact the balcony at the centre of the tragedy will remain in the secure possession of the Berkeley Police Department.

It had been proposed to return the balcony to the Library Gardens building owner, New York-based firm Blackrock.

"It (the Alameda probe) is a step in the right direction. We certainly welcome it. This department has the resources and expertise to conduct this kind of complex investigation. They are also very sensitive to the nature of this tragedy," RLS partner Harry Sterns said.

Ms O'Malley confirmed her office was now conducting the twin investigations after the City of Berkeley formally ended its probe after an engineering report last Tuesday blamed "severe dry rot" for the failure of the timber-supported balcony.

The eight machined wooden beams had all succumbed to dry rot.

Under the twin-track Alameda probes, Ms O'Malley will receive a detailed report by her 60-strong staff on precisely what caused the extensive dry rot and why the waterproofing in the eight-year-old complex failed.

She will then decide what action, if any, results.

But she has the power to order a criminal prosecution, up to an involuntary manslaughter charge.

She can also order a civil action.

Now, a third probe has been launched by the Constructors State License Board (CSLB).

CLSB environmental director David Fogt warned that the Berkeley incident was being taken very seriously.

"We think this is an absolute tragedy and we are on it. This is unacceptable," he said.

Irish Independent


----------



## MASSDRIVER

The deck was sloping obvious enough for eyewitnesses to notice, yet 13 geniuses attempted to auto-darwinate (some successfully).

Apparently the will for self preservation was not strong with them.

Brent.


----------



## ICE

> Constructors State License Board (CSLB)


Media people are not to be trusted.

Alameda County District-Attorney Nancy O'Malley is conducting an investigation.



> Under the twin-track Alameda probes, Ms O'Malley will receive a detailed report by her 60-strong staff on precisely what caused the extensive dry rot and why the waterproofing in the eight-year-old complex failed.She will then decide what action, if any, results.
Click to expand...

The DA needs to stand down until construction experts determine what happened.  When and if there is sufficient evidence of a crime, the DA should bring the appropriate charges.


----------



## conarb

\ said:
			
		

> Berkeley fire and building officials are investigating the collapse at  Library Gardens apartments to determine exactly what caused the balcony  to split from the building, according to city officials. The apartment  complex has three other similar balconies that have been red-tagged,  city spokesman Matthai Chakko said.
> 
> "We need to make sure that new buildings, which this was, are built with qualified labor using the best materials and using strong safety standards," he said. ¹


Is it now the responsibility of the building department to make sure that qualified labor and the best materials are used?

¹ http://wn.ktvu.com/story/29335775/2-investigates-berkeley-building-contractor-has-history-of-lawsuits-osha-violations


----------



## conarb

CDA said above that it was a "spoliation" case. looks like he was right:

This just out:



			
				\ said:
			
		

> BERKELEY -- Days after the Alameda County District Attorney announced her office would open a criminal investigation into the fatal Berkeley balcony collapse, the general contractor who oversaw construction at the Library Gardens apartment complex filed for a restraining order against Nancy O'Malley and her office, to prevent investigators from testing the evidence without Segue Construction officials present.
> 
> A hearing scheduled on the matter Tuesday was postponed, but in its restraining order request Segue Construction joined a chorus of critics complaining about the handling of evidence, expressing dismay that the identical lower balcony, which also had water rot, was removed. The company said further degradation of the balconies, as well as other evidence, would impact their ability to defend themselves in expected litigation, and potentially could implicate Segue's subcontractors.
> 
> Segue claimed it has only been allowed a 15-minute visual inspection of the balconies on June 17, and had no other access to them.
> 
> On June 22, attorneys for building owner BlackRock wrote Segue that if it wanted to inspect the building it would need to reply within four days for further inspection July 1.
> 
> "The remaining work may materially alter the area of the building where the incident occurred," BlackRock attorney Allan Isbell wrote.¹


¹ http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_28406754/berkeley-balcony-collapse:-segue-construction-files-for-restraining-order-against-alameda-county-da


----------



## steveray

We have this which may or may not protect us from spoilage:

(Add) SECTION 116 – EMERGENCY MEASURES

(Add) 116.1 Imminent danger.  When, in the opinion of the building official, there is imminent danger of failure or collapse of a building or structure or any part thereof which endangers human life, or when any building or structure or part thereof has fallen and human life is endangered by the occupation of the building or structure, the building official is hereby authorized and empowered to order and require the occupants to vacate the same forthwith.  The building official shall post, or cause to be posted at each entrance to such building or structure a notice reading as follows: “This structure is unsafe and its occupancy has been prohibited by the building official.”  It shall be unlawful for any person to enter such premises except upon permission granted by the building official for the purposes of making the required repairs or of demolishing the premises.

(Add) 116.2 Temporary safeguards.  When, in the opinion of the building official, there is imminent danger to human life due to an unsafe condition, the building official shall cause the necessary work to be done to render such building or structure temporarily safe, whether or not the legal procedure described in Section 115 has been instituted.

(Add) 116.3 Temporary closings.  When necessary for public safety, the building official shall temporarily close buildings and structures and close, or order the authority having jurisdiction to close, sidewalks, streets, public ways and places adjacent to unsafe structures, and prohibit the same from being used.

(Add) 116.4 Emergency work.  When imminent danger or an unsafe condition requiring immediate action exists and the owner of the building or structure cannot be located, or refuses or is unable to expeditiously render the premises safe, the building official shall order the employment of the necessary labor and materials to perform the required work as expeditiously as possible.  Such work shall include that required, in the building official’s sole opinion, to make the premises temporarily safe, up to and including demolition.

If "we" think it could fall down and hurt someone else, we can take it down ASAP.....We will see what happens as I believe there is a lawsuit pending on the Stamford Christmas fire.


----------



## steveray

In Marks post 127 it appears that they all may have been LVL as it looks like there is a vertical seam about 18" out in a couple of members....


----------



## cda

steveray said:
			
		

> We have this which may or may not protect us from spoilageAdd) SECTION 116 – EMERGENCY MEASURES
> 
> (Add) 116.1 Imminent danger.  When, in the opinion of the building official, there is imminent danger of failure or collapse of a building or structure or any part thereof which endangers human life, or when any building or structure or part thereof has fallen and human life is endangered by the occupation of the building or structure, the building official is hereby authorized and empowered to order and require the occupants to vacate the same forthwith.  The building official shall post, or cause to be posted at each entrance to such building or structure a notice reading as follows: “This structure is unsafe and its occupancy has been prohibited by the building official.”  It shall be unlawful for any person to enter such premises except upon permission granted by the building official for the purposes of making the required repairs or of demolishing the premises.
> 
> (Add) 116.2 Temporary safeguards.  When, in the opinion of the building official, there is imminent danger to human life due to an unsafe condition, the building official shall cause the necessary work to be done to render such building or structure temporarily safe, whether or not the legal procedure described in Section 115 has been instituted.
> 
> (Add) 116.3 Temporary closings.  When necessary for public safety, the building official shall temporarily close buildings and structures and close, or order the authority having jurisdiction to close, sidewalks, streets, public ways and places adjacent to unsafe structures, and prohibit the same from being used.
> 
> (Add) 116.4 Emergency work.  When imminent danger or an unsafe condition requiring immediate action exists and the owner of the building or structure cannot be located, or refuses or is unable to expeditiously render the premises safe, the building official shall order the employment of the necessary labor and materials to perform the required work as expeditiously as possible.  Such work shall include that required, in the building official’s sole opinion, to make the premises temporarily safe, up to and including demolition.
> 
> If "we" think it could fall down and hurt someone else, we can take it down ASAP.....We will see what happens as I believe there is a lawsuit pending on the Stamford Christmas fire.


There could also be other ways to preverve the evidence,

Such as fence off the area below the balconies, and if there were no wieght on the bottom balconey, more than likely it would stay in place another few days.

Plus, if removal is needed, how it is reomoved, and through documentation should have happened.

Or shore up the bottom balcony, till all the lawyers get a chance to jump on it.


----------



## conarb

cda said:
			
		

> There could also be other ways to preverve the evidence,Such as fence off the area below the balconies, and if there were no wieght on the bottom balconey, more than likely it would stay in place another few days.
> 
> Plus, if removal is needed, how it is reomoved, and through documentation should have happened.
> 
> Or shore up the bottom balcony, till all the lawyers get a chance to jump on it.


Looks like the city is at the table for the majority of the civil damages, California is one of the few states with comparative damages, this means that if deep pockets like the city are even held 1% liable they could end up paying all damages in excess of the insurance coverage of the other defendants.


----------



## ICE

cda said:
			
		

> Or shore up the bottom balcony, till all the lawyers get a chance to jump on it.


That's in reverse order.


----------



## ICE

conarb said:
			
		

> Looks like the city is at the table for the majority of the civil damages, California is one of the few states with comparative damages, this means that if deep pockets like the city are even held 1% liable they could end up paying all damages in excess of the insurance coverage of the other defendants.





> This Code shall not be construed to hold the ********** or any officer, employee or agent thereof
> 
> responsible for any damage to persons or property by reason
> 
> of any inspection authorized herein or by reason of the issuance
> 
> or nonissuance of any permit authorized herein, and/or
> 
> for any action or omission in connection with the application
> 
> and/or enforcement of this Code. By adopting the provisions
> 
> of this Code, the ********** does not intend to impose on itself,
> 
> its employees or agents any mandatory duties of care toward
> 
> persons and property within its jurisdiction so as to provide a
> 
> basis of civil liability for damages.


I would be surprised if Berkeley missed that section when they adopted the code.

My understanding is that malice aforethought is required before a city can be held liable.


----------



## conarb

Potential liable parties to bring to the settlement table:

1) The Design Review Commission that added the balcony?

2) The architect who designed the added balcony?

3) The general contractor who supervised the building of the balcony?

4) One or more subcontractors who actually built the balcony?

5) The plan checker who approved the plans and materials without ventilation?

6) The ICBO that wrote the code without ventilation requirements?

7) ICBO Reports that approved the materials?

8) The building inspector who signed off on the construction?

9) The developer/owner who secured all approvals and hired the general contractor?

10) BlackRock who determined the amount of money they would pay for the completed project?

11) The pension funds that demanded an 8% return from BlackRock to invest in the security?

As we as builders know, the quality of construction is dictated by the monies available, a little information on BlackRock and it's major owner Larry Fink in the news today:



			
				\ said:
			
		

> Fink, as overseer of retirement funds for teachers, cops, firefighters, and millions of retail investors, casts himself as a voice for savers. A Democrat, he has provided counsel to central bankers and heads of state, and is quick to mention these interactions in conversation. Fink’s name was raised when President Barack Obama was looking for a new U.S. Treasury Secretary in 2012.¹


Ever wonder when you see the pension negotiations how they calculate an 8% return when banks are paying 1/10 of 1%, T Bills 1% to 2%, stock market returns an average of 4% and can lose drastically, hedge funds like BlackRock that's how.

Damages in the case will be huge, human lives have different values in the civil court system, the lives of your people are valued much higher than old people, particularly older people with little earning power, these were all young people, I think college students with a full life of earnings ahead of them, I have no idea how the fact that they are/were Irish with Ireland being one of the PIGS will affect the economists' calculations fo their life values.  The litigation will revolve around the testimoney of economists more than any other factor.

¹ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-30/blackstone-and-blackrock-are-getting-into-each-other-s-business


----------



## conarb

ICE said:
			
		

> I would be surprised if Berkeley missed that section when they adopted the code.My understanding is that malice aforethought is required before a city can be held liable.


Tiger:

A guy I went to school with made published state law on this issue not long after California adopted comparative negligence.  He and a girlfriend were drinking in a bar in El Dorado County, somebody determined that he was too drunk to drive home so she did, she ran through a county barrier on a curve on a winding road and went off a cliff, he was injured to the tune of a few million dollars in medical fees, the county was listed as a defendant for their maintenance of the barrier, the jury found her 95% liable for driving drunk and the county 5% liable for their maintenance of the barrier, she had no assets and state minimum assigned risk insurance coverage of $15,000, her insurance company immediately tendered their $15,000 policy limits and received a dismissal with prejudice, she filed bankruptcy, the county's insurance carrier was liable for the entire difference.  He didn't even know about this and was no part of the years of appeals, I told him about it at a high school reunion, he later wrote me a letter asking for a copy of the case. Had this accident occurred a couple of years earlier before California adopted comparative liability the county would have paid a fraction of what they had to pay.  You can't write laws or contracts absolving yourself from liability for damaging someone, the old concept of sovereign immunity (you can't sue the king) is breaking down along with kings, you damage someone you pay. PS, a couple of weeks ago I received a notice that he had died at age 81, so he probably lived about 40 years after the accident.


----------



## ICE

I can agree with the County being held liable if the barrier was deficient.  While I can agree that a lousy job of managing the building code should open the door to punishment, allowing liability creates an untenable situation.  Jurisdictions would be better served to repeal the codes rather than enforce the codes.

The government neither designs or constructs the built environment.  The government's role is to enforce codes that regulate what is built.  This is an essential duty performed by the only entity with the capability.  To assume responsibility for the mistakes made by others presumes that government is a willing participant in said mistakes.  Flaws that the designers and builders create are not the fault of the government.  The premise that since the government didn't discover and demand correction of the flaw, the government is now responsible for the flaw is illogical.

So what I think has no importance.  What happens is what matters.  Here lately the world's view of right and wrong has been turning upside down.  It would come as no surprise if the city of Berkeley became an Irish territory.


----------



## conarb

\ said:
			
		

> The government neither designs or constructs the built environment. The government's role is to enforce codes that regulate what is built. This is an essential duty performed by the only entity with the capability. To assume responsibility for the mistakes made by others presumes that government is a willing participant in said mistakes. Flaws that the designers and builders create are not the fault of the government. The premise that since the government didn't discover and demand correction of the flaw, the government is now responsible for the flaw is illogical.


The private sector no-longer decides what to build or how to build it, it has to build what the city tells it to build and how to build it, the most the private sector can do is elect not to build if the city's requirements are too onerous.  In this case the city made them add that balcony late in the game, the architect designed the balcony with methods and materials approved by the city. I suspect that Segue received no extra money to build the balcony, I suspect the developer told Segue the city required the balcony be added and there was no extra money to add it, of course Segue could have said no and walked away eating whatever they had in it at that point, that's what they should have done.


----------



## conarb

\ said:
			
		

> BERKELEY  -- The general contractor who built the Library Gardens apartment  complex where a balcony collapsed and six people died has joined a  chorus of critics complaining about the city of Berkeley's handling of  evidence for a possible criminal case.
> 
> In court documents filed Tuesday seeking a restraining order to  preserve evidence, Segue Construction lambasted the city for ordering  the removal of a separate, lower balcony outside unit 305 shortly after  the accident. The structure, which was an identical design to the  collapsed deck and also suffered from dry rot, "could have been used for  accident reconstruction purposes to determine potential causes and the  source of water intrusion," the filing said.
> 
> The builder was the latest to question the city's actions  following the accident, including attorneys for one of the dead college  students who fell from the fifth-story balcony June 16 while celebrating  a birthday party.
> 
> Three days after the tragedy,  attorney Joseph Lucia -- who along with others in his firm are  representing the family of Ashley Donohoe, the 22-year-old Rohnert Park  woman who died -- wrote the Berkeley city manager, planning and  development director and mayor with a preservation of evidence letter  after learning property owner BlackRock had hired a contractor to remove  the balconies.
> 
> The memo also disclosed the lower balcony had been removed because it was deemed a hazard, and that it had been returned to the contractor hired by BlackRock to remove the structure because it was not the city's property. A city spokesman referred all questions Tuesday about the handling of evidence to the district attorney¹.


This makes it sound like BlackRock removed the lower balcony, or BlackRock hired a contractor to remove it, Berkeley removed it and gave it to BlackRock's contractor.  BlackRock has a fiduciary duty to it's investors and if reports of other leaks all over the building are true damages could well be beyond all liable parties' insurance limits, very important to keep the city in because of their deep pockets.  Cities should require all contractors, architects, engineers, etc. to carry liability or E&O in at least the amount of the value of the building, they require Workers Compensation insurance, why not liability and E&O?  Counsel to the Board told me 15 years ago that the carriers threatened to leave the state if they required it because only a few percent of contractors would qualify, and they would be forced to participate in an assigned risk pool like they are with automobile insurance, but that doesn't stop the AHJs from requiring it.



> Stern, a former Berkeley police officer, said he was "shocked" that the city had initially returned evidence to BlackRock, and that the police department passed on launching a criminal probe.
> 
> "It seemed very, very odd to me," Stern said. "It seemed like the chief of police shot down the investigation immediately. ... At first blush, it may appear that they don't have the technical expertise, but they are certainly capable of calling in other resources."
> 
> Independently, engineering experts have told this newspaper repeatedly that it was a mistake to remove the lower balcony and to return evidence to the property owner, agreeing with an argument Segue makes in the court documents. ¹


This is going to cost all involved a lot of money and the city keeps digging itself into a deeper hole, the CBO and Police Chief have to be working on orders of the City Attorney, from what I've heard the Berkeley City Attorney is more involved in Civil Rights law than Administrative law.

¹ http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_28406754/berkeley-balcony-collapse:-segue-construction-files-for-restraining-order-against-alameda-county-da-to-preserve-evidence


----------



## mark handler

Berkeley balcony contractor seeks restraining order against DA

By Sharon O'Malley | July 1, 2015

http://www.constructiondive.com/news/berkeley-balcony-contractor-seeks-restraining-order-against-da/401569/

The general contractor that built the Berkeley apartment building whose fifth-floor balcony killed six students when it collapsed on June 16 has requested a restraining order against the district attorney in charge of a criminal investigation into the accident.

In a written statement on Tuesday, Segue Construction said it wants to stop the Alameda County district attorney’s office from conducting inspections or collecting evidence unless officials from the company are present. The company claimed it made the request to the office but did not receive a response. A spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office told local media it had not received “that specific request.”

The Segue statement reiterated that the company will cooperate with the criminal investigation. An initial city investigation determined that the laminated wood supports under the eight-year-old balcony had rotted from exposure to moisture.

Dive Insight:

The embattled construction company isn’t guaranteed a court order granting its request. In fact, a Stanford Law School professor called the demand “weird.”

Professor Robert Weisberg, co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, told the Chico Enterprise-Record the district attorney is obligated only to get search warrants for the investigation because the incident happened on private property.

Segue has paid $26.5 million over the past three years to settle construction defect lawsuits, and has been accused in a number of other cases over the past decade.

But the San Francisco Chronicle has reported that the Contractors State License Board apparently was unaware of any of those claims. The newspaper quoted the board’s enforcement chief as saying the agency might have investigated the company or pulled its contractor’s license if regulators had known.


----------



## conarb

\ said:
			
		

> The company’s attorneys said Berkeley had botched the removal of a  balcony directly beneath the fifth-floor deck that collapsed during a  party. City officials said an investigation showed that like the balcony  that failed, the laminated-wood support beams of the removed deck had  rotted from exposure to water.
> 
> The rot spread through the structures after Segue completed work on the 176-unit apartment building in 2007.
> 
> Removing the lower balcony “entailed complete  disassembly and dissection,” Segue’s attorneys wrote in their court  filing. Had it been kept intact, the balcony “could have been used for  accident reconstruction purposes to determine the source and cause of  water intrusion” on the balcony that collapsed, they wrote.
> 
> The attorneys said the removed balcony “may now be irreversibly damaged from destructive testing.”
> 
> Berkeley officials ordered the balcony taken down the day after the collapse, calling it a public-safety hazard. The actual removal was done by Belfor Property Restoration, a contractor hired by the building’s owner. ¹


We've got some answers here, first they say the "laminated-wood support beams" rotted, they say: "The rot spread through the structures after Segue completed work on the 176-unit apartment building in 2007.", it could well be that water leaked into the deck and spread through the structure, but prior reports from tenants say there are leaks and mold smells throughout the building, it could well be that the OSB started rotting throughout the building and spread to the laminated-wood support beams in the decks, if that's the case the city's orders to remove the balconies are not as significant.

They also answer the question as to who removed the deck, Berkeley ordered the owner BlackRock to remove the balcony, BlackRock hired Belfor, a restoration company, to do the actual removal.

¹ http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Construction-company-goes-to-court-over-Berkeley-6358256.php


----------



## cda

So are there only two balconies on the entire complex??

If not what about the others ??


----------



## cda

So are there only two balconies on the entire complex??

If not what about the others ??


----------



## conarb

cda said:
			
		

> So are there only two balconies on the entire complex??If not what about the others ??


I don't know, haven't seen any pictures or read of any others.


----------



## mark handler

Berkeley balcony collapse: Judge denies construction company's request to inspect evidence

By Thomas Peele and Matthias Gafni Staff writers

http://www.marinij.com/general-news/20150702/berkeley-balcony-collapse-judge-denies-construction-companys-request-to-inspect-evidence

POSTED: 07/02/15

OAKLAND -- A judge quickly denied requests Thursday from the company that built a Berkeley apartment building where six people were killed in a balcony collapse last month to have access to evidence in a criminal probe of the deaths.

Pleasanton-based Segue Construction had asked to inspect evidence, including a second balcony that was removed the building after inspectors found it, like the collapsed balcony, suffered from heavy dry rot. Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo rejected the request at a brief hearing, saying it was tantamount "to participating in" the Alameda County District Attorney's investigation.

"There are dueling interests here," Segue attorney Victoria Ersoff told Grillo. "We all known there is going to be civil litigation" and Segue and other parties should be allowed to inspect and test the evidence.

Outside of court, Deputy District Attorney Michael O'Connor said the request was akin to allowing a possible defendant to "piggyback and spy on a criminal investigation."

District Attorney Nancy O'Malley said last week that manslaughter charges were possible in the case. Thirteen people were on the balcony at unit 405 of the Library Gardens building when it gave way shortly after midnight on June 16 during a birthday party, sending them crashing onto Kittredge Street below. The building is eight years old.

Five of the dead and the seven injured people were Irish students visiting Berkeley for the summer. Berkeley officials found that the beams supporting the balcony suffered massive dry rot caused by water intrusion, but did not investigate further.

In what was obviously a disjointed taking over of the matter, O'Malley announced a criminal investigation last week after, a move that left Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates saying he was surprised by her decision.

Segue, engineering experts, and lawyers for the family of one of the person's killed have all criticized how evidence was collected. Berkeley officials quickly ordered the second balcony taken down, a process that Segue said in court papers effetely destroyed it, leaving nothing to test to determine how water got to the beams.

In court papers, O'Connor wrote that the access Segue was asking Grillo to approve "could serve as a template for wrongdoers to impede future criminal investigations. A bank robber could argue that he should be allowed to participate in the fingerprinting of a teller's station. A rapist could claim that he should be present for the recovery of DNA collection from his victim."

Outside of court he said the investigation would be "fair and impartial" and anyone charged, like all criminal defendants, would eventually be granted access to evidence. Segue's lawyers did not speak to reporters.

Follow Thomas Peele at Twitter.com/thomas_peele


----------



## conarb

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> The deck was sloping obvious enough for eyewitnesses to notice, yet 13 geniuses attempted to auto-darwinate (some successfully).Apparently the will for self preservation was not strong with them.
> 
> Brent.


Brent:

What did you expect, they were Irish. I had a left-leaning (if you know what I mean) Irish-American attorney invite me to lunch and ask my opinion, I told him it was obviously the fault of the structural engineer, he failed to apply the Guinness surcharge, his defense will be that there is no reasonable expectation that a dozen drunken Irishman would cram onto a 4x8 deck in Berkeley California.

I'm going to be in Berkeley tomorrow and will see how close I can get to that building, but at this point I don't think they will let anyone near enough to see anything.

In today's news:



			
				\ said:
			
		

> In trying to build a nearly unprecedented criminal case against the company and potentially its employees, Alameda County prosecutors will likely use the builder's $28.5 million in settlements involving water damage to show potential criminal negligence, legal experts told this newspaper.
> 
> Onne Broek, an engineer who consulted in the Millbrae case, said his analysis of those balconies found deficient installation of "critical deck waterproofing and ventilation/insulation components within the deck assemblies," which led to water intruding into the wooden substructure and rotting the support system.
> 
> In the industry, general contractors oversee work, but much of the labor is done by subcontractors. It is not clear which companies were responsible for the Berkeley balcony work, or whether Segue used the same subcontractors that it had in other projects where suits were filed.
> 
> Stanford law professor Robert Weisberg, co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, said O'Malley's investigators will certainly look into these civil claims to try to establish an "egregious failure of due care." While the hefty settlement dollars from civil suits are not permissible, Weisberg said, the "underlying facts" can be used to show that the company knew there was a balcony water-intrusion issue before the Berkeley collapse, yet did nothing.
> 
> Roth, the UC Berkeley assistant law professor, said corporations are rarely charged criminally in a homicide.
> 
> "I think in general in this country, you don't see the homicide law used against corporations in the past because we don't want to chill commerce," Roth said. "It's looked at as something that is part of the risk of living and doing business. ... That's always the balance the law tries to find."
> 
> Weisberg said prosecutors could bring charges against Segue but also subcontractors, the developer, property owner, management company and city of Berkeley, including individuals from each entity.
> 
> "If they can be sued civilly, they could be charged criminally," Weisberg said. If a company were to be charged, he said, the punishment would likely result in a fine; however, individuals charged could face jail time.¹


¹ http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_28433645/berkeley-balcony-collapse:-could-segues-civil-disputes-spark-criminal-charges


----------



## Phil

City of Berkeley Building and Safety has a June 23rd report online: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/uploadedFiles/City_Manager/Press_Releases/2015/Staff%20Recommendation.pdf


----------



## conarb

Thanks Phil:



			
				\ said:
			
		

> The balcony was designed using a 2-inch thick concrete topping slab installed over 1/8-inch asphaltic hardboard over a bituthene membrane underlayment over a primer as
> 
> shown in Detail 12 on Sheet AD33 of the Approved Plans. Structural support was
> 
> provided by two (2) layers of ¾-inch tongue and groove oriented strand board (OSB)
> 
> sheathing installed on 1¾x11-7/8 inches laminated veneer lumber (LVL) joists which were
> 
> notched down to 9¼ inches at the transition to the exterior and then sloped to a
> 
> minimum depth of 7¼ inches at the joist ends as indicated in Detail 12 on Sheet AD33
> 
> and Unit B8 3rd/4th Floor Framing Plan on Sheet S1.6 of the Approved Plans. The Joist
> 
> Legend on Sheet S1.6 of the Approved Plans specified that the perimeter framing of the
> 
> balcony was to be formed by doubled up framing members. The bottom of the balcony
> 
> was to be finished with metal lath and 5/8-inch minimum thickness cement plaster as
> 
> required by 1998 CBC Table 7C Item #13-1.2 and as referenced in Detail 5 on Sheet
> 
> AD22 of the Approved Plans.


So it was LVLs and real stucco on expanded metal lath, it does appear that Segue constructed (at least) the balconies according to code minimum plans, and Berkeley approved and inspected to the plans. It's strange that the stucco under the balconies wasn't severely water-stained.



			
				\ said:
			
		

> *Ventilation*Pursuant to 1998 CBC Section 1505.3 and 2306.7, ventilation is required for enclosed
> 
> spaces at attics and under-floor spaces between the bottom of the floor joists and the
> 
> earth under the building. Ventilation of other concealed spaces was not required.


That's why we couldn't find any ventilation requirement, there aren't any, it's just something that better contractors always do, of course affordable housing is always built to code minimum, there isn't the money to go beyond code.

*Staff Recommendation To Adopt Local Amendments To CBC And The Berkeley *

*Housing Code (BMC Chapter 19.40)*



			
				\ said:
			
		

> • Add Section 1203.6 to read as follows:*Section 1203.6 Ventilation of weather exposed enclosed assemblies.*
> 
> Balconies, landings, decks, stairs and similar spaces exposed to the weather and
> 
> sealed underneath shall have cross ventilation for each separate space by
> 
> containing ventilation openings protected against the entrance of rain and snow.
> 
> Blocking and bridging shall be arranged so as not to interfere with the movement
> 
> of air. The net free ventilating area shall not be less than 1/150th of the area of
> 
> the space ventilated. Ventilation openings shall comply with Section 1203.2.1. An
> 
> access panel of sufficient size shall be provided on the underside of the enclosed
> 
> space to allow for periodic inspection.
> 
> *Exception:* An access panel is not required where the ceilings applied
> 
> directly to the underside of joists are easily removable using only common
> 
> tools.


It's routine that lathers install continuous ventilation under balconies, in fact I've built many buildings in fire zones and had to tell the lathers not to supply the continuous vents, that I would be buying and supplying them with fire-dampened vents, this was true even back in the 60s when I was building apartments like this one. As to inspection panels I've long thought that they should be installed, all airplanes they must have an annual inspection (some larger have progressive inspections in accordance with a written approved program), the aircraft is covered with small inspection plates to access inaccessible areas of the wings and fuselage, the mechanics look through these inspection plates with dental mirrors for corrosion, bent metal, or other problems, we do install inspection panels to access Jacuzzi motors and other inaccessible equipment.



			
				\ said:
			
		

> • Add Section 1404.13 to read as follows*Section 1404.13 Projections exposed to weather.* Balconies, landings, decks,
> 
> stairs and similar floor projections exposed to the weather and sealed
> 
> underneath shall be constructed of naturally durable wood, preservative-treated
> 
> wood, corrosion resistant (e.g., galvanized) steel, or similar approved materials.
> 
> • Amend Section 2304.11.4.2 as follows:
> 
> Section 2304.11.4.2 Wood structural members. Wood structural members that
> 
> support moisture-permeable floors or roofs that are exposed to the weather, such
> 
> as concrete or masonry slabs, shall be of naturally durable or preservative-treated
> 
> wood *(Strike: unless separated from such floors or roofs by an impervious *
> 
> *moisture barrier)*.
> 
> • Amend Section 2304.11.5 as follows:
> 
> *Section 2304.11.1 Supporting members for permanent appurtenances.*
> 
> Naturally durable or preservative-treated wood shall be utilized for those portions
> 
> of wood members that form the structural supports of buildings, balconies,
> 
> porches or similar permanent building appurtenances where such members are
> 
> exposed to the weather* (Strike the balance of the sentence starting with "without adequate protection......")*


In addition there is a proposed Housing Code addition section 601.4 requiring inspection within 6 months of all R-1 and R-2 occupancies by a licensed contractor, architect, or engineer with continuous 5 year inspections thereafter.

It appears that the real culprit here is both the codes and the ICBO Reports, BTW, at the time of the adoption of the 1998 CBC it was mandated by the state, the city could have amended it but it seems the state should be more liable than the city, in fact the state mandated that the city enforce this code.


----------



## MASSDRIVER

I wonder what the possibility is that it never leaked, but was built in wet conditions and sealed wet.

Brent.


----------



## conarb

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> I wonder what the possibility is that it never leaked, but was built in wet conditions and sealed wet. Brent.


Of course that's a possibility, there is also the possibility that the sealed-up walls are leaking and the dry rot just went from the walls into the decks, some residents have said there are leaks all over the place in that building and that they smell mold.  I've seen many buildings that didn't have decks and the walls are full of dry rot, and it's codes that require walls to be sealed up "to save the planet".  The press has been quick to blame the contractor, the DA even glorying in charging him with manslaughter, I don't want to defend Segue, a paper contractor, but with today's codes contractors are put into a horrible position, especially contractors who build at low-end budgets.

I would suspect that many apartments that I built 50 years ago are leaking too, but we did not seal up walls with plywood or put insulation in them, those walls breathed, water runs in and water runs out and dries out.  Ever open up an old Victorian or Craftsman?  Water stains all over the place inside the walls with no WRB, the old redwood is in fine shape, all old double hung windows leaked, we did little in the way of flashing other than wrap the opening with 15# felt, we did protect the head casing with a little tin or copper strip with a hundred little copper nails with redwood siding.


----------



## ICE

When I was a kid I got the job of caulking around windows.  I was told to never caulk at the bottom because the water needs a way out.


----------



## MASSDRIVER

I do that now.

I have finally settled on the Marvin window recommended procedure. I roll my top and side window flashing into the opening about an inch. Then I cut two corner pieces about six inches long and fold that into the bottoms corners, over the bottom and behind the sides so they are counter flashed. I put a piece on the top, caulk the top and sides, chalk about and inch along the bottom, and into the corner towards the inside about an inch. That insures no water can enter to the sill. The first top flashing is actually under the window so it's not caulked on the wood vinyl interface. Once I have the window fastened I put another strip across the top.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler

Berkeley: Council to consider tighter structural standards and inspections for balconies

By Tom Lochner tlochner@bayareanewsgroup.com

POSTED:   07/07/2015

BERKELEY -- City planning and building officials are proposing a package of safety-related urgency ordinances in response to the June 16 collapse of a fifth-floor balcony at a downtown apartment complex that killed six young adults and injured seven more. A city councilman, meanwhile, is proposing tougher building and inspection standards for balconies.

The City Council is scheduled to consider the proposals on July 14.

An inspection by Berkeley building official Alex Roshal and Senior Building Inspector Steve Messinger on June 16 found﻿ the cantilevered joists of the balcony, at the Library Gardens at 2020 Kittredge St., completely shorn off about 16 to 20 inches from the exterior building face, with a torn waterproofing membrane hanging over the joist ends, according to a report from Roshal. The deck joist ends protruding from the exterior wall appeared to be severely dry-rotted, the report stated.

Planning and Development Director Eric Angstadt proposes adding several sections to the city Building Code.

One would mandate cross-ventilation for enclosed assemblies of balconies, landings, decks and stairs.

Another would require naturally durable or preservative-treated wood, corrosion-resistant steel or similar approved materials for the floors of balconies, landings, decks, stairs and other projections.

Angstadt also proposes requiring inspection and certification by a licensed expert of balconies and other weather-exposed areas within six months, and thereafter every five years.

Urgency ordinances require a seven-ninths vote of the council and are effective immediately upon approval.

Councilman Jesse Arreguin wants the city to move toward requiring steel reinforcement for all balconies in new developments, and proposes to send a letter to the California Building Standards Commission urging it to update the state code to require steel in balcony floors.

"Unlike wood, steel is less likely to deteriorate over time, is better able at withstanding the elements, and is a stronger material," the proposed letter reads in part.

Arreguin also wants periodic inspections of balconies in multiunit rental properties, with a time frame yet to be worked out.

Additionally, he wants written disclosure requirements for owners of rental properties and homeowner and condominium associations with balconies that are not steel-reinforced, and the posting of signs in the balcony area specifying the maximum weight capacity.

The regular July 14 City Council meeting is at 7 p.m. in the Old City Hall, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way.

The June 16 balcony collapse killed Olivia Burke, Eimear Walsh, Eoghan Culligan, Niccolai Schuster and Lorcán Miller, all 21 and from Ireland, and Ashley Donohoe, 22, of Rohnert Park.

Contact Tom Lochner at 510-262-2760. Follow him at Twitter.com/tomlochner.


----------



## mark handler

Berkeley balcony collapse points to a loophole in law

Builder has history of construction defect lawsuits

Regulators don’t need to be told if suit against a contractor is settled

Pending bill to close loophole is being opposed by building industry

http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/article27020380.html

2013, Segue paid $3.5 million to settle a case brought by the owners of a 109-unit condominium complex that had been completed just three years earlier on El Camino Real in Millbrae, according to court documents filed in San Mateo County.

In the Millbrae case, the contractor failed to waterproof the balconies, which caused "immense dry rot and mold." No one has been able to use the balconies there for 18 months, she said, and the Park Broadway Homeowners Association is is now in the process of opening up bids process to repair the balconies.

Almost from the start, it was clear what had caused last month’s fatal collapse of an apartment balcony in Berkeley. It was right there in the news photographs.

Wood rot. Somehow, water had seeped into the support beams and disintegrated them in the scant eight years since the building’s completion. It was only a matter of time until the balcony sheared off.

Less apparent were the red flags that might have prompted closer inspections, had state and local authorities only had better information.

The Pleasanton construction company that built the Library Gardens complex near the University of California at Berkeley campus has been sued repeatedly during the past decade by litigants claiming shoddy work, according to court records. In fact, according to the Contractors State License Board, which, with the help of the Attorney General’s Office, has been scouring court documents for weeks now, the firm, Segue Construction Inc., has paid out more than $22 million in the past three years alone just to settle lawsuits involving balconies with water damage.

“Had we known about the suits and the underlying reasons for them, we would have absolutely taken action,” the Contractors State License Board’s chief of enforcement, David Fogt, told a Sacramento Bee editorial board member this week.

The repeated problems would surely have triggered an investigation into suspense or revocation of their contractor’s license, he said, adding that even a citation for a single violation would have gone on Segue’s record to alert to city building officials.

But because Segue settled out of court, and because a loophole in state law allows it, the board, which oversees construction licensing in California, was unaware of the company’s history of construction defect lawsuits until after the June 16 tragedy.

This needs to be fixed. The only question is whether state lawmakers will do right by the victims — and by California consumers — or capitulate to the powerful building industry.

There’s no good reason why regulators should be kept out of the loop on contractors’ settlement records. Other professionals are required to notify state licensing bodies when they settle lawsuits stemming from a work-related error.

Regulators don’t always make that data public — a shortcoming in the law, we think — but at least the agencies with the power to, say, yank a bad actor’s license can see which physicians or engineers or architects are having problems.

With contractors, that’s not the case. Unless a lawsuit goes to trial and ends in a judgment, the Contractors State License Board might remain in the dark forever. Builders claim they need the special secrecy to deter frivolous “shakedown” lawsuits. But doctors get sued, too, and we make them share their legal histories with the state medical board.

Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo — a contractor — has introduced legislation to improve construction industry disclosure. Senate Bill 465 would require the state to be notified when contractors are convicted of a felony or when they settle a significant claim having to do with negligence, fraud, incompetence or other serious professional wrongdoing.

Hill has tried before, without luck, to bring reporting standards in his field into line with other professions. SB 465 is two days old and already the California Building Industry Association and the Construction Employers Association have come out against it.

Lawmakers should care less about what builders’ lobbyists think and more about the six young people who died in that collapse, and the seven who were seriously injured. Just last week another young man was killed when an apartment stairwell collapsed in Folsom.

Demanding the transparency to prevent these kinds of accidents from recurring is the least the Legislature can do.


----------



## conarb

Segue and all of the affordable housing builders build to code minimums, it appears that the balcony was built to code minimum, isn't the real fault in the codes and approved materials?  Let's face it, you can put Segue out of business and another city will demand cheap housing and there always will be another contractor who will bid and build to code minimum.  The real fault lies with cities demanding cheap housing and the codes.


----------



## Mark K

Is this a question of code minimums or a contractor that did not comply with the construction documents.  I think the latter.

It is easy to say blame it on the codes.  The best technical standards in the world will not accomplish anything unless individuals comply with them.


----------



## conarb

Mark K said:
			
		

> Is this a question of code minimums or a contractor that did not comply with the construction documents.  I think the latter.It is easy to say blame it on the codes.  The best technical standards in the world will not accomplish anything unless individuals comply with them.


Mark:

Obviously we have to await the expert reports, but at this point it appears that the structure was designed and built to code minimums.  We do not build submarines, low cost construction must be built quickly by it's nature, any minor flaw or penetration can cause a failure, redundancy should be built in.  One huge failure point I have found is sealant failure in flashing allowing water in, I don't use sealant in flashing but have problems as well, in 1978 the EPA took the lead out of solder and solder has never been the same, particularly with vertical seams, we've had better luck soldering copper, but now cities are banning copper because of the fish, but copper wouldn't have been in the budget here anyway.  Another potential flaw is workmen kicking holes in the waterproofing, and these cheaper buildings are built so quickly that lots of this goes unnoticed.  The plans call for Bituthene used as the waterproofing, they also show it nailed down with cap nails, Grace had that installation approved in their ICBO Report at the time of the 1998 Code, Grace later withdrew that approval but by the time this building was constructed cap nails were no-longer approved, but the building was built under the code in force at the time of submittal, 1999.  In 2007 couldn't a knowledgeable Berkeley inspector have said: "Hey guys, the current ES Report for Bituthene doesn't allow cap nails anymore, how about you save some money and leave them out and I'll overlook the fact that they are required in your approved plans?)

Bottom line was the city demanded the balcony be added, probably no room in the budget for it but it had to be thrown in, the architect designed it in accordance with the code in effect, something happened in the installation and the inspector didn't catch it, and the code didn't and doesn't even include a flood test (Berkeley is proposing to add one after the fact), and the CPC is supposedly eliminating flood tests in shower pans to accommodate accessibility requirements of curbless showers (I build curbless showers all the time and do flood test them as now required by code, but will the production builders building cheap housing be doing flood tests if they don't have to?).


----------



## TheCommish

Berkeley tightens building code in wake of balcony collapse

http://www.fireengineering.com/ap-news/2015/07/15/berkeley-tightens-building-code-in-wake-of-balcony-collapse.html?eid=293080452&bid=1123746


----------



## ICE

> BERKELEY, Calif. (AP) — Balconies on Berkeley, California, apartment buildings will be inspected every three years under new regulations adopted by the city in the wake of a balcony collapse that left six people dead.


Didn't conarb mention inspection plates?  That little deck that failed would need six.



> The City Council also voted on Tuesday to require that new balconies be made of corrosion-resistant material and be ventilated to prevent a buildup of moisture.


There's some thinkers on the city council.

Over achievers too.



> The council also agreed to form a task force to more closely examine the city's building code.





> Meanwhile, California lawmakers rejected a bill Tuesday that would have required construction companies to disclose felony convictions and settlements to state regulators over construction defects.


They need a law for that?



> Segue Construction, the company that built the Berkeley apartment has paid more than $26.5 million in the past three years to settle lawsuits related to balcony failures.


These people should have been ripped a new :butt long ago.  The coming lawsuit will be the end of Segue Construction.


----------



## steveray

And then they will just start a new LLC or whatever and do it all over again...I vote Hammurabi!


----------



## conarb

steveray said:
			
		

> And then they will just start a new LLC or whatever and do it all over again...I vote Hammurabi!


Isn't the city as much as admitting the code was wrong by changing it?  Bet the permit and associated fees exceeded a million dollars, the city made a lot more money than Segue, and will continue to rake in property taxes for the 30 year service life of a cheap building. What about the inspector who missed whatever turns out to be wrong with the deck?  Or maybe go to the real culprit, the pension funds that dangled that pot of money out there and said: "If you can build it for this you can have it"?  Can't you just see Segue's estimators unrolling the plans for the first time saying: "Where can we cut to make this go?"  Another saying: "It can't be done."  Another saying: "Grind the ****ing subs down until it can be done."


----------



## mark handler

Collapses in Folsom, Berkeley invite scrutiny of building flaws

By Brad Branan bbranan@sacbee.com

http://www.sacbee.com/news/investigations/the-public-eye/article28066789.html

After recent fatal collapses of an apartment stairwell in Folsom and a balcony in Berkeley, officials said rotted wood failed to support the weight of the victims.

While building experts don’t know how widespread the underlying conditions are, they say problems are common enough that another building failure could happen and that lawmakers and the construction industry should work together to find solutions.

“The potential is out there for another collapse,” said Winfred DeLeon, Sacramento County’s chief building official. “Dry rot is somewhat common in our region.”

Some structural engineers say the deaths highlight the need to use stronger building materials, while others say they show the need for better weatherproofing and maintenance. The Berkeley City Council last week approved regulations on the construction and inspection of balconies and other external structures, and building trade associations are discussing whether such measures are needed statewide.

“This is not just a local issue,” said Ryan Kersting, president of the Structural Engineers Association of California, which is forming a task force with the American Institute of Architects and the California Building Officials to examine how to respond to these problems. “This is going to follow through to other jurisdictions.”

In Folsom, a July 3 stairway collapse killed a 26-year-old master’s degree student visiting a friend at a 15-year-old apartment complex. The June 16 balcony collapse in Berkeley killed six young adults, most of whom had just arrived from Ireland for the summer.

DeLeon said the design of the stairs in Folsom is common for apartments built during the Sacramento region’s building boom that ended about 10 years ago. The stairs that collapsed at the Legends at Willow Creek in Folsom were outdoors, with steel and concrete steps bolted into wood.

Wood can rot when exposed to excess moisture or water, so it needs to be covered by a protective barrier, DeLeon said. Ron Takiguchi, vice president of California Building Officials, takes a similar view.

“Dry rot, the culprit in all of this, is a matter of maintenance or improper installation,” said Takiguchi, Santa Monica’s chief building official.

Ken Venolia, a retired structural engineer in Sacramento, said builders should not use wood to support outdoor weight-bearing structures.

“Why take the risk?” he said. “These owners (in Folsom and Berkeley) and insurance companies are going to pay more than it would have cost to use steel or concrete supporting material.”

The Berkeley City Council has asked the California Building Standards Commission to update the state’s building code to require corrosive-resistant steel as a support for balconies. In a letter to the commission, the council says “there’s a possibility that the current standard allowing wood reinforcing of balcony floors will mean that failures in sealing and subsequent water damage may lead to more balcony collapses.”

The Berkeley council has updated its code to require the use of “naturally durable or preservative-treated” wood for structural supports. The council also approved a requirement that apartment balconies be inspected by the city every three years.

Andy Davidson, vice president for construction at Anton Development Company, which builds and manages apartment complexes, said requiring steel as an anchoring material is “overkill.” He said wood can support weight just fine as long as it is properly waterproofed. Apartment managers need to visually inspect units for water stains monthly and have a structural wood rot and pest inspector perform tests if stains are found near wood supports, he said. Annually, they need to check drains and other features that can cause excess water to get into the wood.

Cities do not formally inspect waterproofing as part of their permitting process, and that needs to change, said Davidson, a member of the executive board at the North State Building Industry Association.

So far, Folsom officials have proposed no new procedures following the fatal collapse at Legends at Willow Creek. Chief Building Official Steve Burger has said that unless someone files a complaint, the city’s responsibility for building safety ends when the city approves a structure for occupancy. He said he is reluctant to propose new safety measures until he has a better sense of what caused the wood rot.

Unlike Sacramento and Berkeley, Folsom lacks a program to inspect rental housing. In Sacramento, after an initial inspection finds no deficiencies or the property owner corrects problems, the owner is required to perform a self-inspection annually.

Folsom Councilwoman Kerri Howell said she doesn’t want a similar program in her city.

“It puts a burden on government that it shouldn’t necessarily have,” she said. “It should be a burden of the property owner.”

In 2001, the city of Folsom received an anonymous complaint about a stairway at Fairmont at Willow Creek, which is next to Legends at Willow Creek and built by the same contractor, Fairmark Development, according to information obtained through a California Public Records Act request. The caller said the stairway did not meet code but did not specify the exact nature of the problem or which stairwell at the complex was failing.

A Folsom building official spoke to apartment management, was told there was no problem, and the city closed the case, records show.

The stairs at Fairmont at Willow Creek are built the same way as those at Legends at Willow Creek, with metal and concrete walkways supported by wood, city officials said.

A letter posted at Fairmont at Willow Creek last week noted the death at the neighboring complex and said “we want to reassure our residents of the structural integrity of the stairwells in our community. We have been proactively repairing, reinforcing and weatherproofing our stairwells for over the past three years to prevent such an incident and to ensure the safety of our property.”

Builders must get a permit for any work involving “the removal or cutting away of any structural beam or load-bearing support,” according to a state code cited by Elaine Anderson, Folsom deputy city manager. The city has no record of the complex receiving building permits for stairway improvements, she said.

Rich Fagan of Austin, Texas-based CWS Apartment Homes, which operates Fairmont, said the company has done extensive waterproofing of the stairways at the Folsom complex and found no safety problems with them.

Fairmark Development also built apartments in Rocklin and Sacramento. The company is no longer in business, records show, but was one of several related development and property management companies operating out of the same San Diego office, including Fairmark Residential, which is still operating. Officials at Fairmark Residential have not responded to repeated messages since the fatality at Legends at Willow Creek.

Fairmark Development built Trovas Apartments on Natomas Boulevard in Sacramento, records show. The complex is managed by Greystar, a Charleston, S.C.,-based company that manages complexes around the world, including the one where six people died in Berkeley. The manager at Trovas said he could not comment, and Greystar officials in Charleston did not return messages.

The complex has outdoor stairwells bolted into wood, Sacramento city officials said. The city has not received any complaints related to stairway safety at Trovas, said Carl Simpson, code and housing enforcement manager for the city.

The stairwells at the Meridian at Stanford Ranch in Rocklin are also outdoors and bolted into wood, said Marc Mondell, the city’s economic and community development director. He said city officials recently conducted a visual inspection of the stairwells, did not find any obvious problems and encouraged the apartment management to conduct further tests.

Brad Branan: 916-321-1065, @BradB_at_SacBee


----------

