# City Inspectors Appear to Ease Millennium Yellow Tag Threat



## mark handler (Sep 14, 2018)

City Inspectors Appear to Ease Millennium Yellow Tag Threat
	

		
			
		

		
	



https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/loc...ss-to-Tilting-Millennium-Tower-493180921.html
Assistant Director of the Department of Building Inspection cited concerns about "public safety and due to the uncertainties about the performance" of the glass and steel façade, which consultants have warned may be separating from the tilting structure
A top city building official has threatened to yellow tag and restrict access to the troubled Millennium Tower if a cracked 36th floor window is not inspected, saying he is "gravely concerned" and the public is not better protected against the risk of falling glass.
A showdown over safety at the sinking and tilting Millennium Tower in San Francisco appeared to be averted Thursday as city building inspectors dialed back a threat to yellow tag the building as a safety hazard because of a cracked window.
That softened stance comes as new images of the interior walls appear to be cracking inside the 36th floor unit where a window suddenly failed over Labor Day weekend.
The latest clash began Wednesday, when top building inspection official Ron Tom expressed grave safety concerns over a cracked window in the tower in a letter to tower management and attorneys.
Tom went so far as to threaten to yellow tag the 58-story building as a potential hazard if all units were not inspected and safety barriers put in place by Friday to protect pedestrians from any falling glass.
“We feel this precaution is justified in order to protect the public,” Tom said of the letter on Thursday.
But he seemed satisfied about a commitment by owners to put up more scaffolding to protect pedestrians, saying it was a good step to avoid a yellow tag.
“We don’t want any incidents where we didn’t take the proper action to secure that sidewalk if it should happen,” Tom said
Tom Miller, a lawyer for the Millennium Homeowners Association seemed relieved there apparently will be no yellow tag after all.
“We’re very hopeful that the city will not take that drastic measure,” he said, adding he expects the city will sign off on a new plan to inspect and secure the cracked window.
The new effort involves accessing and taping off the damaged window from nearby windows. It comes after an observation drone crashed Saturday.
“I understand the city’s primary charge is safety of the public,” Miller said, “and I understand this represents a public safety issue, which I think we have now contained and responded to the city in the right way.”
Meanwhile, new photos show cracks have opened up in the ceiling and between the wall and baseboards of Unit 36B.
Experts fear those cracks could be more evidence that an entire 58-story stack of windows may be coming apart from the building. That’s a threat city officials hope Millennium will take seriously.
Jerry Dodson, who lives in Millennium’s 42nd floor, worries the building’s problems are outpacing the talks on how to fix them.
“The building is going down and tilting and twisting,” he said. “So with all those three things going on, the building is not waiting to see how the mediation turns out.”


----------



## JCraver (Sep 14, 2018)

It's going to be interesting to see what happens / who gets the blame when this POS finally falls down.  Hopefully there aren't many people in it when it happens, and I hope no one gets hurt.

Just based on reading media accounts of this debacle from the beginning, the whole thing seems to me like a lack of guts on the part of the building department.  IIRC it was leaning before the first people even moved in, no?  Ridiculous.  Condemn that thing and get those people out of there, or keep the owners and the lawyers happy and deal with the consequences.  Seems like an easy choice to me, but I like to sleep at night.

2015 IPMC - *[A] 108.1.1 Unsafe structures. *An unsafe structure is one that is found to be dangerous to the life, health, property or safety of the public or the _occupants _of the structure by not providing minimum safeguards to protect or warn _occupants_ in the event of fire, *or because such structure* contains unsafe equipment or is so damaged, decayed, dilapidated, *structurally unsafe or of such faulty construction or unstable foundation, that partial or complete collapse is possible*.

*[A] 109.1 Imminent danger. *When, in the opinion of the _code official_, there is _imminent danger _of failure or collapse of a building or structure that endangers life, or when any structure or part of a structure has fallen and life is endangered by the occupation of the structure, or when there is actual or potential danger to the building _occupants _or those in the proximity of any structure because of explosives, explosive fumes or vapors or the presence of toxic fumes, gases or materials, or operation of defective or dangerous equipment, *the code official is hereby authorized and empowered to order and require the occupants to vacate the premises forthwith*. The code official shall cause to be posted at each entrance to such structure a notice reading as follows: “This _Structure_ Is Unsafe and Its _Occupancy_ Has Been Prohibited by the _Code Official_.” It shall be unlawful for any person to enter such structure except for the purpose of securing the structure, making the required repairs, removing the hazardous condition or of demolishing the same.
_
_
Condemn it.  Take it to court and make them prove you wrong.  At least in the meantime there won't be anybody that dies because they're living in it when it falls down.


----------



## cda (Sep 14, 2018)

Hay

Nolan Ryan does foundation work now.

I think he get win the foundation fight


----------



## Msradell (Sep 14, 2018)

I read an article recently that they are talking about drilling caissons down to bedrock under the building to support it and possibly even Jack the building back up slightly to get rid of the tilt.  I'm not sure how they are planning and getting equipment big enough to drill caissons to support that much weight into position to do the drilling however.  Most caisson drilling equipment I've ever seen it 40 to 50 feet tall.  It doesn't seem like putting them around the perimeter would do any good, they need to be under the building.


----------



## Mark K (Sep 15, 2018)

A little less hysteria.

The building is no more likely to fall down than any other similar building.  Engineers have looked into this question.  The problem is that there is excess settlement which may make the building unusable or undesirable. 

The tower is a problem building but there is no need to evacuate the building.

The broken glass is a problem which must be addressed but this is not the first tall building that had glass problems and does not require the building be evacuated.

There are methods for installing deep foundation elements that do not need 40 foot high rigs including some that could be set up in your living room.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 15, 2018)

Mark K said:


> A little less hysteria.
> 
> The building is no more likely to fall down than any other similar building.  Engineers have looked into this question.  The problem is that there is excess settlement which may make the building unusable or undesirable.
> 
> ...


They are tying to put on  a little pressure. If they don't, the owners will do nothing.


----------



## conarb (Sep 15, 2018)

The facts are that a government agency undermined the tower's foundation in building it's Trans Bay Transit center, there were plans for this at the time of the permit application for the Millennium Tower, why did the city plan check let this happen? 


> Whats more, Millennium Partners said it should have been no surprise to Transbay engineers. "TJPA knew well before they began work on the transit and their site that their construction and in particular their de-watering of their site could have a significant impact," Meier said.
> 
> "We were promised it would have zero impact on groundwater in our building," Jeffries said.
> 
> ...



Furthermore the building is a poured concrete structure, that's a huge amount of weight on those soils, with all the money that was paid to plan check the building why didn't city plan check suggest a steel frame structure rather than poured concrete?  I've never permitted anything of this size, but everything I do permit plan check litterally tells me, my architects, and engineers what to do. 

What good are city plan checkers? 

¹ https://abc7news.com/realestate/mil...wer-on-transbay-terminal-excavations/1519899/


----------



## Mark K (Sep 15, 2018)

There is a lot of pressure without the city.  The city is not helping.

There is a lot of information that the adjacent bldg is not a significant contributor.

Read Chapter 18.  What provision would have prevented the settlement?


----------



## conarb (Sep 15, 2018)

Mark K said:


> There is a lot of information that the adjacent bldg is not a significant contributor.
> 
> Read Chapter 18.  What provision would have prevented the settlement?



The courts will determine how much of a factor and assign proportionate blame.


----------



## ICE (Sep 15, 2018)

Tilting is the precursor to falling over. That’s the reality of the people that live in that building. How could it be otherwise?  I don’t know the dimensions of the building but a 16” tilt must be noticeable.

How much lean it would take to bring it down is an engineering question. At 645 ft. tall with a five level subterranean parking garage and caissons 60’ to 90’ deep it will probably lean way out there before it falls.......but you have to wonder.


----------



## cda (Sep 15, 2018)

Leaning Tower of San Francisco


They always need a new tourist attraction


----------



## Mark K (Sep 16, 2018)

While the courts do assign blame some times their rulings are based on emotion.

In probably the majority of cases the claims for damages are resolved prior to trial.  It is not uncommon for innocent  parties to pay into the settlement because of business decisions made by them and the insurance companies insuring them.  Litigation is expensive and sometimes the outcome is not clear.  This is also the reason that plaintiff attorneys name everybody they can.

While the tilt is excessive and might make the units impossible to sell the consensus among the structural community is that this is not a reason to be concerned about collapse.

Wait until something like this occurs in your jurisdiction.  As I said a little less hysteria

On the other hand jokes may be appropriate.  If this results in enough tourists the City may make a profit.


----------



## conarb (Sep 16, 2018)

Mark K said:


> While the courts do assign blame some times their rulings are based on emotion.
> 
> In probably the majority of cases the claims for damages are resolved prior to trial.  It is not uncommon for innocent  parties to pay into the settlement because of business decisions made by them and the insurance companies insuring them.  Litigation is expensive and sometimes the outcome is not clear.  This is also the reason that plaintiff attorneys name everybody they can.
> 
> ...


 Mark:

Looks like you are right on all counts, John King the chronicle's architectural critic agrees with you, but he does say:



> Yes, these all are caricatures to some extent. Several other nearby towers of recent vintage don’t go down to bedrock, either. The difference? They were engineered correctly.¹




¹ https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Why-sinking-SF-tower-is-now-a-top-tourist-13231133.php


----------



## Mark K (Sep 17, 2018)

While Mr. King's discussion of the social economic impact is interesting, it is frustrating when an architectural critic is given more credibility regarding structural safety than a Structural Engineer.

It is also frustrating when the engineers at the building department act out of fear and ignorance.

When faced with a problem building the building official should consult with experts in order to make sure the response is appropriate and not the result of jumping to conclusions and thus causing more grief.


----------



## tmurray (Sep 17, 2018)

It should not be burden on tax payers to prove this building is unsafe. When we have a building that does not appear to be meeting the performance metrics, the responsibility should be on the owners to provide experts at their cost to demonstrate that the building is safe or what measures must be undertaken to make the building safe.

Reading in between the lines of the article. It is likely that the city reached out to the building owners to get assurances from their experts that the building was safe or would be made to be safe. Lacking a response of any substance, the city followed up with the threat to "yellow tag" the building. Now this got their attention. Real consequences for lack of action. 

We do this all the time. First contact is the "friendly" what are you doing question. If/when we don't get a response, we follow up with the "this is what bad things are going to happen if you keep ignoring me" letter. In my experience, most people will act based on the first contact. Some wait to the second and fewer still ignore that one.


----------



## JCraver (Sep 17, 2018)

TM, I'm sure that's what happened.  But I also think the City has already bought the liability if something does happen and they're just posturing for when it gets to court.


----------



## JCraver (Sep 17, 2018)

Mark K said:


> A little less hysteria.
> 
> The building is no more likely to fall down than any other similar building.  Engineers have looked into this question.  The problem is that there is excess settlement which may make the building unusable or undesirable.
> 
> ...



No hysteria, just what I'd do if it were here.  When it falls down, I don't want that on me.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Sep 17, 2018)

conarb said:


> What good are city plan checkers?



They are a second set of eyes, not the designer.


----------



## conarb (Sep 17, 2018)

Pcinspector1 said:


> They are a second set of eyes, not the designer.


Have any idea what the permit and plan check fees were for that "second set of eyes"?


----------



## Mark K (Sep 17, 2018)

California has strong immunity laws meaning that the city would have no legal liability.  What the building department personnel fear is the political consequences from the local politicians.  Could they have done a better job of educating the Board of Supervisors regarding the issues?

Building officials and plan checkers often cause problems on projects when they worry about liability when there is none.  The efforts to cover their A__ then causes problems.  This only adds to the hysteria.

The owner had already had at least one respected engineer look at the building and as a result the engineer made a statement that the building was not at risk of collapse.  Further it is the consensus of the local structural engineering community that the building is not at risk of collapse.  If the City had reached out to the building Owners I would have expected their engineers to say that at most there could be more broken glass but remember that glass can break for many reasons.

While reaching out to the building owner is desirable the Building Official should hire their own consultants to advise them if they do not have inhouse capability.  The city cannot avoid its responsibility to evaluate whether there is a safety problem irrespective of who ultimately pays for it.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 17, 2018)




----------



## tmurray (Sep 17, 2018)

Mark K said:


> While reaching out to the building owner is desirable the Building Official should hire their own consultants to advise them if they do not have inhouse capability.  The city cannot avoid its responsibility to evaluate whether there is a safety problem irrespective of who ultimately pays for it.





Mark K said:


> California has strong immunity laws meaning that the city would have no legal liability.  What the building department personnel fear is the political consequences from the local politicians.  Could they have done a better job of educating the Board of Supervisors regarding the issues?
> 
> Building officials and plan checkers often cause problems on projects when they worry about liability when there is none.  The efforts to cover their A__ then causes problems.  This only adds to the hysteria.
> 
> ...



The city's concerns appear to be primary based on the risk of the falling glass injuring pedestrians.


----------



## Mark K (Sep 17, 2018)

The pictures Mark Handler posted appear to be at the base of the building.  Given the magnitude of the settlement I would expect to see this sort of damage but this is not an indication that the building is unsafe.

The building has settled but the adjacent ground not so much.  Thus you would expect the local distress.


----------



## JCraver (Sep 17, 2018)

Mark K said:


> California has strong immunity laws meaning that the city would have no legal liability.  What the building department personnel fear is the political consequences from the local politicians.  Could they have done a better job of educating the Board of Supervisors regarding the issues?
> 
> Building officials and plan checkers often cause problems on projects when they worry about liability when there is none.  The efforts to cover their A__ then causes problems.  This only adds to the hysteria.
> 
> ...




In the saner portions of the country, that first sentence is a strike against your state and not the bonus you frame it as.  And your last paragraph kinda' contradicts that, so which one is true - there's no liability, or the City should hire someone to "evaluate" it so there is no liability?

SF's most junior, brand new, fresh-out-of-school code enforcement officer could tell you that it's sinking in one direction and leaning in another, and that neither of those things is right.  Until it goes to court and a judge sides with the engineer(s), the City should evacuate it.


----------



## Mark K (Sep 17, 2018)

The city has an obligation to respond to code non-compliances and by extension concerns about safety.  This obligation exists even if the City has no liability for its actions.

Even if the city has no liability the courts can compel the city to do its job.

The leaning, while excessive, is not enough to create a stability problem.  To put it into perspective 16" in 645 feet is 0.118 degrees or a little more than 0.27" in one story.  If this bothers you, I suggest that you evacuate every building in your jurisdiction that is that out of plumb.  You might not have a job afterword but you will be consistent.

Are you also suggesting that every building where there are claims of structural inadequacy be excavated until it is decided by the court?  Remember that many of these claims are resolved without going to trial.

At times like this everybody needs to be calm and objective.  Take the advice of your experts and the City attorney.


----------



## ICE (Sep 17, 2018)

JCraver said:


> the City should evacuate it.



The building is in a slow decline.  As long as the utilities function and the furniture is staying put it will take a fire to get an evacuation order from the building department.


----------

