Berkeley Balcony Collapse

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1395 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 16, 2015 - 10:49 am:    Any architects/spec writers in Berkeley able to advise on this tragedy near the USC campus, I understand 5 have died initially and photos of the scene are unclear whether this was a wood or concrete balcony that was apparently overloaded. Ironically there was a woman who fell to her death from a balcony in NYC today. BALCONIES are back in the news. Its ironic too because I am having a heated conversation with a GC and Developer regarding balcony construction on a SFL project. Their claim being that the architect and specwriter have over specified the balcony components, specifically the use of galvanized steel in the concrete deck. Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, June 16, 2015 - 11:02 am:    Definitely wood construction based on pictures http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-berkeley-balcony-collapse-20150616-story.html Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 588 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Tuesday, June 16, 2015 - 11:57 am:    I never cease to be amazed by owners who want to tell us how to do our jobs, but then want us to be responsible and liable for their decisions. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 589 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Tuesday, June 16, 2015 - 12:02 pm:    I never cease to be amazed by owners who want to tell us how to do our jobs, but then want us to be responsible and liable for their decisions. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 744 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, June 16, 2015 - 01:08 pm:    Without comment on the collapse but USC refers to University of Southern California. UC Berkeley is located in Northern California. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1396 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 16, 2015 - 01:18 pm:    My apologies, only been to Calif once, visited Fresno and Big Sur. Looking at some of the news feeds, that building elevation has consistent repeat façade elements, except for those two oddball balconies, very curious design? Almost looks like those balconies were tacked on after. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 672 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 16, 2015 - 01:18 pm:    Mark, We should excuse Jerome as he is south Florida and may not be familiar with CA geography. From the picture I saw this morning, it looked like wood construction, but it wasn't possible to see the condition of the wood. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 491 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, June 16, 2015 - 01:33 pm:    From the San Francisco Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Five-dead-8-hurt-in-Berkeley-balcony-collapse-6329902.php#photo-8158978 It looks like cantilever wood beams snapped off right at the wall line. The balcony below seems to have been completely filled in with security grills, perhaps for children, making it hard to interpret the images. Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 675 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Tuesday, June 16, 2015 - 01:38 pm:    Steve, that's as good a photo of the condition as I've seen. I agree that it appears that cantilevered beams appear to have sheared off. What's odd to me is that there is no bright white, freshly exposed wood evident. Not even shards or splinters. The amount of dark wood material at the failure points suggests to me that those beams were rotted out, perhaps severely. Conjecture only, but given the photo..... Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 676 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Tuesday, June 16, 2015 - 01:47 pm:    No, I am changing my mind. Cantilever beams on a deck condition are not the norm for multifamily construction. There appears to be a ledger beam, and the deck joists are attached to it. I can't see joist hangers, but they are common. What's also odd is that you can clearly see deck joists and slatted wood decking. It appears to be the underside of the deck that is visible, but that is hard to explain given the railings. I don't know. Something is really weird about that photo. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 492 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, June 16, 2015 - 02:10 pm:    I agree. at first it seems to have swung down almost as if it was hinged at the wall line and then dropped a couple feet to land on the guardrail of the balcony below it. But if that was the case we would be looking at the walking surface, but as you note, it seems like we are looking at the underside of the balcony. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1397 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 16, 2015 - 02:15 pm:    Nathan, if you are correct and that is a ledger than the decks could have been added after CO, not being part of the design. I did not see the actual balcony floor in any of the pics. I hope you guys keep this post alive, I am curious as to what conclusions are reached. Also how is the wood rotten when you've had 4 years of drought? My guess is that those decks were never permitted and thus not designed or built correctly. Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 677 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Tuesday, June 16, 2015 - 02:21 pm:    Given that those are french doors leading to the Deck, they are most likely part of the original design. Just because there are only a few decks does not necessarily point to a retrofit. Multi-family designers often use various components across an elevation to break up the monotony of an elevation, and julliette balconies are one such method of doing so. As for drought, its kind of irrelevant. It still does rain, and people still hose off their decks, and there is still condensation, poor ventilation, and atmospheric fog/dew point conditions, particularly in San Francisco. There's plenty of moisture vapor in the air to rot out a few wood joists Richard A. Rosen, CSI, CCS, AIA Senior Member Username: rarosen Post Number: 117 Registered: 08-2006 Posted on Tuesday, June 16, 2015 - 03:56 pm:    Based on the reports 5 killed and 7 injured means that there were at least 12 people on what appears to be a rather small balcony. Could overloading be a major contributing factor? Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 673 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 16, 2015 - 04:09 pm:    Latest report indicates it's now 6 dead & 7 injured - total of 13 Weight could be a contributing factor. We probably won't know the whole story until the report comes out. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 51 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 16, 2015 - 04:37 pm:    Richard, Don't assume all the casualties were ON the balcony. Some could have been under it or at street level. Let's all learn from this and other building failures so we can better serve and protect the public. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 745 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, June 16, 2015 - 06:24 pm:    Even if the loads were in excess of what is required by code I would not expect that to be the primary cause of the failure. Local speculation here in Berkeley, is that it is the result of decay. Cantilevered wood joist are not that uncommon for this type of construction. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 493 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, June 16, 2015 - 06:26 pm:    San Francisco and the Bay Area have an unfortunate history of raised decks collapsing with multiple injuries if not fatalities. Usually though, the culprit is a decades old carpenter-built deck built with rule-of-thumb engineering off the back of a Victorian. Add too many party guests, moving to the simple beat of techno/house/etc and you are simulating a Richter Scale 8 earthquake. anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, June 16, 2015 - 07:01 pm:    Here's what I gather from the images (and news articles text): The deck failed and the railing pivoted downward at the floor line, 180 degrees, so that it rested immediately above and directly in line with/over the railing on the balcony below. Cantilevered wood members failed, appear wet and rotted. Waterproofing membrane is a single layer of self-adhering SBS modified asphalt - Grace Bituthene is clearly legible on the portion that remains hanging over the sheared wood members. This waterproofing appears to have been applied over composite wood deck/sheathing material (looks like OSB to me). Looks like poured concrete walking surface was placed over the waterproofing membrane, flush with the sheet metal flashing at the deck perimeter. Which means that the waterproofing was recessed into the deck construction, which also means that it was likely turned UP at the edges, and since I do not see any drains, that it was allowed to sit in this recess and to evaporate/dry when/if it could after rain events. Due to this condition, there was likely quite a bit of water sitting in the bathtub that was formed by the waterproofing membrane, and likely found multiple routes of entry into the wood structure below. The railing supports look to be attached to the wood deck/sheathing BELOW the concrete paving, and very likely anchored with wood fasteners THROUGH the waterproofing membrane, which is one route of entry for the water. If not attached through the WP with fasteners, the peel and stick membrane would have needed to be carefully brought up and around each railing upright to create a watertight condition, and I can see no evidence of that in the images. This is such a tragic thing to have happened. If designed like what I can see/suspect, I think that the architect is going to have a tough time ahead. If the Contractor/Developer changed the design from something the architect had originally designed/documented, then it is that party that will suffer legally. The statute of limitations in CA for latent defects is 10 years from time of "completion." The architect's web site states that this project, Library Gardens, was under construction in 2005, so lawsuits will easily make the 10 year time limit. All of the parties involved in the design and construction of this project should be very, very troubled by this. If I were an owner or renter of any project designed by the architect for this building, I would be worried as well. Ditto that for those in buildings developed and built by same parties that did this building. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 746 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, June 16, 2015 - 10:10 pm:    The failure occurred a foot or more from the face of the wall. Definitely not at the point of maximum bending moment. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1400 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, June 17, 2015 - 02:32 pm:    I have the same (local) information as Mark, but my experience in this area is that there is a lot of resistance to using galvanized or stainless fasteners, and while everyone talks about "how wet it is" here, good waterproofing details are not always universal. (the "wet" is fog, not rain). There was also conversation that this balcony was very overloaded, and the landlord is now saying that they are "decorative" only. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 494 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, June 17, 2015 - 02:41 pm:    So perhaps instead of the usual legal term "attractive nuisance" we will see this described as a "decorative nuisance". Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1402 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, June 17, 2015 - 02:48 pm:    A decorative balcony would barely hold one person, not 13, this is going to be one hell of a lawsuit. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 495 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, June 17, 2015 - 03:14 pm:    The idea that this was a "decorative balcony" seems to have come from a member of the Berkeley Design Review committee or group that reviews projects for design and planning issues, not technical architecture and engineering issues. I do not believe you need any special qualifications to sit on this committee. With a french door the residents could open you obviously can't call it decorative, unless by a miracle the Owner can show that the lease or rental agreement specifically noted you could not go out on the balcony. One thing I haven't seen noted is if this balcony was accessed from an apartment unit or a common area in the building. Finally, Berkeley is a city with aggressive anti-smoking rules. Whether the balcony was off an individual unit or common area, it may have been the only place you were allowed to smoke. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1404 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, June 17, 2015 - 03:34 pm:    In Florida we occasionally specify a multi-family rental project with 'French Balconies', these are basically decorative ledges, barely 12 inches deep where French Doors do open in (yes they leak) to allow breeze flow, but use of the ledge as a balcony is impossible and the edges of the ledge are protected with a railing. The balcony is usually reinforced both for aesthetics and load (some use it as a plant pot shelf. I have been told in the past that the "French Balcony" was imported from our friends in California? Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1405 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, June 17, 2015 - 03:44 pm:    Michael, tragedies like this one if they occur in Florida tend to put the building departments on guard, when ever someone dies in a building fire, the permitting process gets much tougher, Fire Department approvals get much tougher, I assume that is the same in Calif. Of course in Florida Hurricane Andrew's devastation totally changed the building code and how jobs are built. There has not been a major hurricane in Florida in ten years, some of my colleagues are hoping for a hurricane this year (these are mostly roofers, engineers, and roof material manufacturers). I went thru Andrew and many other storms, I've had my share, but the complacency I am seeing and the shoddy construction needs a wake up call. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 747 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, June 18, 2015 - 10:00 am:    The required design loads are not impacted by a label such as decorative. I do not believe that the type of fasteners were a factor in the collapse. All of the signs point to wood rot as being the cause making the load on the balcony irrelevant. Correct me if I am wrong but other than some general statements about the need for flashing and the need to keep water out, the IBC is not very specific. I do not see any code requirements for inspections of flashing and waterproofing. Not all problems can be prevented by changes to the building code. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1416 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, June 18, 2015 - 11:35 pm:    ARTICLE IN TODAY'S SFGATE SAYS IT ALL: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Berkeley-mayor-says-water-damage-probably-to-6333561.php Apparently contractor for the building has already paid out $6 million in claims regarding rotted balconies...I don't understand if they knew there was a problem why did they not check all balcony conditions. David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 118 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Friday, June 19, 2015 - 08:54 am:    Jerome, Thank you for linking us to the news article. I am very sad for those people and their families. My son and daughter travel a lot in their studies and I am always relieved when they return home. I cannot imagine how the families of those young people must feel right now. Events like this give us firmer resolve to do our work as well as we possibly can and to vehemently eschew compromise. It sounds as though Jerome is constantly exposed to these risks when fighting to keep specifications in projects. Keep fighting for what is right, Jerome, whether it is in MF95 or MF04. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1418 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, June 19, 2015 - 09:05 am:    Thanks David, yes this news story interests me and my peers in SFL, although we seldom use wood for elevated deck/balcony structure, concrete is the norm here, we have are own problems with corrosion and spalling and the occasional failure and loss of life. As I mentioned previously I am having a serious argument with a developer who wants me to delete galvanized steel from his job's balconies and is refusing to properly protect the concrete decks, ie with traffic coatings or add a corrosion inhibitor additive to the concrete mix. It a fight I've had before and I doubt that Berkeley tragedy will sway this Developer, perhaps if he was Irish it might, but his ancestors come from Italy and he wants it his way. He won't accept the fact that concrete cracks and moisture will eventually get to the steel reinforcement. The fight continues. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 748 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, June 19, 2015 - 01:50 pm:    Whether the balconies are out of concrete or wood we do not have a problem if the waterproofing is effective. There are enough examples out there to show that it is feasible to have waterproofing that works. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 864 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 23, 2015 - 05:36 pm:    NY Times http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-berkeley-balcony-collapse-20150623-story.html Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 498 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, June 23, 2015 - 07:02 pm:    Here is the local press: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Berkeley-balcony-was-severely-dry-rotted-6344547.php ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 917 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, June 24, 2015 - 10:14 am:    Really? Anyone else ever fought this battle? Oriented-strand board is also considered more prone to water damage than traditional plywood. Plywood was the material called for in the building’s architectural plans. City spokesman Matthai Chakko said that under the building code, “the two products are virtually interchangeable.” Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 678 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Wednesday, June 24, 2015 - 10:57 am:    Structurally, OSB and plywood sheathing are both considered "Struct 1" grade panels for purposes of shear diaphragm calculations and structural values. However, OSB is not appropriate where weather or moisture exposure is likely. The APA (American Plywood Association) has some good documentation on all this. They also define different exposure values, which are intended to be used to clarify where plywood is more appropriate over OSB. Here is one such document: http://www.americanplywood.net/pdf/APA_guide.pdf Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 749 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, June 24, 2015 - 12:21 pm:    If the construction documents showed plywood they should have provided plywood. This is not a call for the contractor to make. Richard A. Rosen, CSI, CCS, AIA Senior Member Username: rarosen Post Number: 118 Registered: 08-2006 Posted on Wednesday, June 24, 2015 - 01:09 pm:    Mark: We don't know that plywood or OSB was shown/specified or if the Architect didn't approve of the change. All we know is that this was probably an inappropriate use of material which very well could be the Architect's responsibility. Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 679 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Wednesday, June 24, 2015 - 01:11 pm:    Possibly, maybe not. If a deck topping material such as Lifedeck was applied, the use of OSB is arguable. However, where I feel liability may exist is the lack of soffit vents. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 750 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, June 24, 2015 - 03:58 pm:    The existence of roof vents would not have prevented the problem. There was a problem with the membrane on a roof overhang on my house and even though there was infinite venting of the underside of the roof the roof rafters still rotted. The decision to use OSB or plywood is in my experience made by the structural engineer. We need to focus on the cause of the problem and not on where the problem was manifest. My focus would be on the specification and installation of the waterproofing system. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 499 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, June 24, 2015 - 04:25 pm:    A sidebar regarding soffit vents. The California Building Code, Chapter 7A, has started restricting their size and assembly in areas considered very high fire hazard zones. Opening size (in non-combustible grill or mesh materials) is restricted to 1/16 to 1/8-inch. A lot of the state is so zoned. Zone maps are available here: http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_wildland_zones_maps.php Though they often create more questions thna answers. This further restricts any positive affects that venting might provide. anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, June 24, 2015 - 05:23 pm:    The problem stems from the fact that the waterproofing membrane was recessed, and no means of escape for the water that collected within the recess - except in small holes in the waterproofing from punctures, or laps that weren't done perfectly, etc. The fact that the beams were cut for slope away from the face of the building really doesn't help much, since it isn't the surface water that is the problem here - it's the pool of water in the recess! What this balcony needed to make it work was a traffic coating OVER the concrete and flashed to drip/drain over the edge. This is a negligent design. Guest (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, June 24, 2015 - 01:50 pm:    OSB vs. plywood in this case, in my opinion, is not an issue. It wasn't the plywood or OSB that failed. It was an issue of water infiltration causing the wood joists to decay. If it was just the OSB that failed, a foot would have gone through the deck. Looking at some of the construction details that were posted shows metal flashing at the edge of the balcony that would trap water rather than drain it where the waterproofing membrane was located in the assembly. Right next to that is where the railings attach. I would point to this as potentially where the water was able to get into the assembly. I'd really like to see details 6 and 18 that are referenced in the balcony edge detail to be sure. http://www.berkeleyside.com/2015/06/19/no-smoking-gun-in-berkeley-balcony-design/ Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1420 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, June 26, 2015 - 02:39 pm:    DA Launches Investigation into Berkeley Balcony Collapse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV2ex888U1I&feature=share Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 866 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, June 26, 2015 - 03:20 pm:    I'll have to change my waterproofing specs. I didn't realize Grace's Ice and Water Shield is their "top of the line water proofing." J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 850 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, June 26, 2015 - 04:17 pm:    Yeah... I saw that; I did not realize Grace recommended it for any waterproofing. I constantly have to remind my clients that Grace makes a number of peel-n-stick products. If they want to put a brand name on the drawings, it should be the right brand name. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1421 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, June 26, 2015 - 07:33 pm:    Dumb question of the Day? Can a building official be sued for negligence? If the Building Dept approved the plans for the balcony and it turns out their approval was wrong, can injured parties take the Building Dept to court? Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP Senior Member Username: rich_gonser Post Number: 105 Registered: 11-2008 Posted on Friday, June 26, 2015 - 08:16 pm:    This comment is separate from the discussion as to what may have caused this tragic failure. If it is on the UC Berkley campus, there is NO building department. The UC system is not subject to local jurisdiction. The only state agency that reviews anything is the access review by Division of the State Architect. The State Fire Marshall has a campus Fire Marshall who is responsible primarily for fire safety. Building review is handled as a peer review. The only review I've ever seen is structural. From the Architectural perspective, I've seen many campus buildings with elements that I would never approve as a plan reviewer. There are Inspectors of Record, this is the individual who could have seen something. Generally, waterproofing consultants are hired to review documents. Sometimes they do field work but not always. As for someone to sue, good luck... These well paid State employees are indemnified from prosecution of negligence. The Contractor is one who is likely exposed here. I could go into what I've seen in the photos that tell me things. But, there are a lot good professionals on this forum who are making solid comments. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 751 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, June 26, 2015 - 09:35 pm:    Inspector of Record is a role that exists for public schools, junior colleges, and hospitals in California. This definitely is not required for private residential projects. Waterproofing consultants are not required by code. There are no required special inspections for waterproofing and flashing. The code provisions for waterproofing and flashing are not very specific so it is unclear what the city inspectors can require. It needs to be appreciated that a plan checker working for the city can only require what is required by the adopted regulations. He cannot impose his own preferences. When performing his official duties a number of legal doctrines or laws shield the City and its employees from litigation. Thus they effective have no liability. That said it is not clear that the City staff did anything Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1422 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, June 26, 2015 - 10:41 pm:    Richard, I was not clear on whether the building was part of the campus, I thought it was a private developed apartment building in the City of Berkley near the campus. I've never been to Berkley, and only a few towns in California. I have no experience with how building departments work in California, though I doubt it is much different from Florida. The fact that the DA is investigating and could levy criminal charges got me to wondering possible scenarios. In Florida, I believe the building official is not liable for mistaken interpretations. Each State is different. I will keep listening and watching as I am curious of the final interpretations from all parties. Hopefully the results of this tragedy will reinforce the important of inspections after construction is completed. In Florida maintenance is often neglected. I am completing revisions to a set of specs for a large apartment complex that has undergone major review by the Owner and GC. Due to this review prior to start of construction every instance where we specified maintenance to be done after completion of construction, has been stricken from the specs, even maintenance recommended by manufacturers to maintain warranties. The Owner does not want the GC involved in any maintenance plans for the building. I doubt the maintenance requirements that were removed will be documented in any other way, certainly not by me. The Owner claims they have their own maintenance plan, but will not share with me and the Architect is not concerned. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 752 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Saturday, June 27, 2015 - 02:19 am:    The project is a private apartment complex not far from the campus. The consensus is that the problem was due to moisture that got in because of a failure of the waterproofing membrane on the balcony deck. It is not clear to what extent the problem is the result of design or installation. The original developer sold the building. There have been reports that there have been problems with water. It is unclear whether the current owner attempted to see if there were other problem areas and if so how thorough their investigation was. Richard Gonser AIA CSI CCCA SCIP Senior Member Username: rich_gonser Post Number: 106 Registered: 11-2008 Posted on Saturday, June 27, 2015 - 12:01 pm:    Thanks for the input. I was obviously thinking it was a campus housing apartment. My comments were strictly related to subject, as I've worked in that arena. Let me add that some private developers in California do hire independent inspectors. I have no knowledge of this developer and contractor. But, when these inspectors start making themselves a nuisance, they're removed. Then they'll replace that individual with a go along to get along type. I've witnessed it. Is it problem solved or is it problem created? Regardless of the Owner's consultant, the best contractors I know will hire their own waterproofing inspector/consultant just to reduce their liability. I agree with the comments here that longer term water damage is evident is the pictures. The focus is on the deck waterproofing. What I see in the photos is also the lack of water management and crack control in the plaster(no visible joints). The top of the deck could be fine and the water wicks in from the plaster from above and on the side at the transitions. I've seen good reputable companies get screwed by incompetent installers. This is one of the reasons I've been considering adding a water test like AAMA 501.2 to the weather barrier section. Has anyone done that? ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 920 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Saturday, June 27, 2015 - 12:36 pm:    I don't think weather barriers are able to withstand that type of test; you really want the veneer installed before testing. You can require the AAMA test for metal wall panel systems and even terra cotta wall systems. You can create a mockup panel of actual work in place and test that before continuing with the rest of the veneer installation in case modifications are required for the air barrier system. There are similar tests for masonry walls. A firm I worked with collected in-place comparative data between different air barrier systems. The findings were surprising to me. As long as a true air and water barrier was used, every system tested passed (mostly using blower door) when the system was installed with a compliance inspection agency performing full-time observation during air barrier installation. Of course this doesn't speak towards longevity of the materials. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 55 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Sunday, June 28, 2015 - 02:48 am:    Most of the discussion has been about the challenges of protecting wood balconies with waterproofing. That is likely to remain a problem despite the best of materials, detailing, installation, inspection and maintenance. Perhaps the better approach is to use other systems. For example: - Wood structure that is left exposed to view so it can be readily inspected. - Steel outrigger to support deck with only a few breaks through building envelope. - Cold-formed steel framing with heavy zinc coating, proper fasteners, and detailed to not catch and hold water. - Columns to support the balcony. - Glass-Fiber reinforced polymer composites. I would welcome your idea for alternative directions. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 753 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Sunday, June 28, 2015 - 01:23 pm:    It would not surprise me if there were signs of moisture that were ignored and if followed up on would have identified the problem in time. Steel rusts. Galvanized steel takes longer to rust. Columns to supports the balcony defeats the purpose and is especially problematic when the balcony extends over the public sidewalk. Cold formed steel is even more sensitive to rusting than rolled steel. The IBC does not include structural provisions for glass-Fiber composites and even if it did we still have the rest of the wood structure. If you have a good waterproofing system competently installed and an owner who provides reasonable building maintenance you should have no problem. If you do not you will have problems no matter what you do. Most of the proposed "solutions" focus on how the problem presented itself and not on the root cause. We need to focus on the root cause and on implementing good practices. Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 406 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Tuesday, June 30, 2015 - 09:20 am:    Here is an article recently sent to me: Washington Post: Condo wars: How a water leak turned into a $30 million lawsuit Condo wars: How a water leak turned into a $30 million lawsuit Damage has forced all the residents out of one of Georgetown’s most prestigious addresses. http://wapo.st/1RMvy4x Colin Gilboy Publisher, 4specs.com 435.200.5775 - Utah 800.369.8008 Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1931 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Monday, September 24, 2018 - 10:25 am:    Gov. Brown signs SB 721, 9/21/18 a law that requires periodic inspections of balconies and decks on multi-family buildings. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 425 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Monday, September 24, 2018 - 03:25 pm:    Re SB 721 - For designers, this would mean designing decks that can be inspected, meaning exposed structures or inspection ports. It could also mean the ability to inspect anchorage points and cantilevered beams/joists on the inside of the building. For existing structures, there may have to be partial demolition. I foresee lots of charlatans getting into the deck inspection business, and horrific liability for design professionals that do the inspections. I hope it means better detailing and materials used for decks and balconies. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS 1-818-219-4937 www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru David G. Axt, CCS, CSI ,SCIP Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1718 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, September 24, 2018 - 03:52 pm:    Last year, I attended a Simpson Strong Tie about deck design. The speaker said the most dangerous area in a residence is not the bathroom or kitchen but the deck. He said every month there is a deck collapse somewhere in the country. Sometimes the collapse does not hurt anyone and just does property damage. Many times the collapse kills or injures people sometimes dozens. And then there are the lawsuits that cause financial damage. He said the reason for collapses are decks are not built well, not inspected, are out in the weather (slowly deteriorating) and misused (several people overloading the deck). Of course Simpson has "skin in the game" because they promote and sell their connectors, but in this case their items could save lives. David G. Axt, CCS, CSI, SCIP Specifications Consultant Axt Consulting LLC