another deck failure

[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]

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]

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:

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]

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.

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]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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

That's in reverse order.

 

[ICE]

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:

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]

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.