I don't understand how this could happen in this modern age when California has strict building codes (to prevent structural damage---as much as possible---during an earthquake).

1) Earthquake and water are two distinctly different things and act in distinctly different ways.

2) Having strict codes and having strict enforcement are also two distinctly different things. This was brought back tot he forefront by Hurricane Andrew in 1992 where the South Florida Building Code was considered a strict code at the time (and it was), however, the same could not be said about the enforcement of the code ... enforcement of the code is as critical as the code itself, but much more time, money, and effort is spent on creating a strong code than is spent on ensuring strict enforcement of the code.

Creating a strong code is rewarding to politicians as constituents like the feeling that they will be protected.

Enforcing a strong code causes constituents to get angry and feel that they are being "picked on" (even though the code is being enforced equally on all projects, each project thinks they are being "picked on" and think "no one else has to do that"), the constituents then call their politicians to complain ... politicians do not like to hear their constituents complaining about being "picked on" by those who enforce the code or that "no one else has to do that".

It is perception that matters to politicians, not reality.

When a call comes in to a politician complaining about being "picked on" and that "no one else has to do that", the first question which the politician should as is this:
- Politician: "Does the work meet the code?"
- Contractor: "Well ... no one else makes me do that." (I.e., the contractor is saying "No.")
- Politician: the next statement from the politician should be - "When the work is corrected and meets code, please call me and let know if there is anything else you need." (but that will not go over very well with the contractor who is trying to need have to meet the code, so we know how that will turn out ... )

Jerry Peck
Construction Consultant

What caught my eye was the fact that most of the joists (except the end ones) seem to have snapped a foot or two out from the wall. Makes me wonder if the flashing is lapped but not sealed at that point, allowing water to leak "uphill" into the framing. Or maybe the fasteners that held down the decking material allowed the water in.

The photo, by David Yee, at the top of this article shows a unique sequence of events in the collapsing of the balcony and its guard railing.

Based on that photo, the following is the likely sequence of events which happened seconds, or fractions of a second, apart;

1) Notice that the balcony floor system from the 5th floor balcony is on top of the 4th floor balcony guard railing and is standing vertically against the wall. The framing in the balcony floor structure is visible, which indicates that the underside of the balcony (the ceiling over the 4th floor balcony) is against the wall.

Also notice that we are looking through what was the front of the guard railing for what was the 5th floor balcony.

The plywood/OSB structural panel which once covered that framing has fallen apart as the balcony floor pivoted downward and against the wall. The waterproofing membrane which goes over the structural panels is visible and is hanging down from under the door to where the 5th floor balcony was.

2) Now look at the 5th floor balcony guard railing which is setting on top of the 4th floor balcony guard railing.

The white part you see on what appears to be the top of the railing as it is shown in the photo is actually the drip edge flashing which was around the top (floor) of the 5th floor balcony. Look at the 4th floor balcony guard railing, now mentally rotate that guard railing so that the bottom is at the top, the top is at the bottom, the front is now against the wall, and the open area which was at the door is now facing outward - that is the orientation of the 5th floor balcony in that photo. The 5th floor balcony guard rail made a 180 degree rotation.

The unpainted ends of the 5th floor balcony guard railing which you see projecting outward while resting on top of the 4th floor balcony guard railing are the ends which were against the wall at the 5th floor (there was insufficient space to paint those ends when the guard railing was in place).

Some between 1) and 2), the people who were standing on the 5th floor balcony floor likely felt the floor fall away below them, a natural reflex would be to grab onto anything around you to try to catch yourself from falling.

What was around them to grab was the guard railing.

As the people were likely grabbing the guard railing, it too fell, the load on the guard railing likely was placed toward the front of the guard railing, which caused the guard railing to rotate as it fell. The people were now left with nothing to hold unto and the 5th floor balcony guard railing was no longer in front of them as the front of the guard railing was now rotating under them. There was no place to go other than all the way down to the street below.

As the 5th floor guard railing continued to rotate to the position shown in the photo (where the guard railing came to rest), it may have been possible for a few people to get entangled on the 4th floor balcony railing during their fall, falling either inward onto the 4th floor balcony or outward and down to the street below. I have not heard that this happened, but the sequence of the guard railing falling after the floor and the rotation of the guard railing could have lead to that happening. There may be some injuries found which relate to this.

I find it interesting that the 5th floor balcony guard railing did not fall with the 5th floor balcony floor - if it had, the guard railing would be in a different orientation - the front of the 5th floor balcony guard railing would be facing down to the 4th floor balcony floor as the guard railing would only have rotated 90 degrees instead of the 180 degrees shown in the photo.

That means that not only did the 5th floor balcony break off and fall such that it was left vertically against the exterior wall, the balcony floor joist system and the structural panel floor substrate separated, but the guard railing and the balcony also separated, allowing the guard railing to fall unattached from the balcony.

The balcony fell like a hinge, flopping down against the building, not falling straight down (otherwise the 5th floor balcony would have landed on the 4th floor balcony guard railing with its bottom side down (it didn't land that way).

The 5th floor balcony guard railing was left suspended in air for a sufficiently long enough time to fall separate enough to allow for an additional 90 degrees rotation of the guard railing.

Flashing and water proofing balconies and stair landings of frame buildings is a critical construction detail, yet this work is typically done by the lowest bidder, and in a manner which saves as much as possible on material and labor costs.

It is a false saving as, even if there had been no injuries, the problem with the balconies would have surfaced sooner rather than later, and the cost to repair far exceeds any savings at the time of construction.

Just my observations based on that one photo, and, yes, I have seen many other photos on this, and all of them which show the 5th floor balcony guard railing lead me to the same conclusions, even the photos of the guard railing being removed.

Jerry Peck
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC
http://constructionlitigati...

Further review of other photos and the photo above shows what appears to be a hole in the underside of the 5th floor balcony.

This tragic event may (speculation based on the photos) have started when the flooring of the 5th floor balcony under one person gave way and they started to fall through, at which time they would likely have grabbed anything around them to keep from falling, they likely would have grabbed the balcony guard railing (the hole appears to be close to the outboard edge of the balcony), the sudden weight of them grasping the guard rail while falling would have exerted more load on the balcony than just their weight, and that sudden movement may not have been able to be withstood by the remaining balcony structure, thus the remaining balcony structure failed.

This is in addition to what I posted above, the floor surface giving way under one person may have been the trigger which started the cascading events which lead to the balcony structure not being able to withstand the force and load and lead to the ultimate failure of the decayed structure.

Whereas a balcony structure which was not compromised by wood decay (or any other strength reductions) may have been able to withstand that sudden shock force and the balcony may not ... may not ... may not have failed, or may not failed catastrophically as that balcony did.

Just another observation based on the available photos.

Jerry Peck

Jerry, have you seen this article with architectural drawings yet? http://www.berkeleyside.com...

Gail,

I looked at it when it first went up, but there were not drawings at that time.

See where it says "Pan flashing per detail ... " and the arrow pointing to one of the flashing layers shown in the drawing?

The threshold is, and should be, setting in the pan flashing, however, there is no inner up turned back to the pan flashing shows in the drawing.

A "pan flashing" has the back edge (inside edge) and the two side edges (ends of the pan) turned up and the corners soldered (or otherwise effectively sealed in a permanent manner, not just sealant in the corners).

The intent of the pan flashing is that any water penetrating in, around, and under the door is captured in the "pan" and the only way out for the water is to go back to the open front where the pan bottom is turned down to allow water out.

A couple of points with pan flashings:
- any anchor screws required to fasten the threshold in place penetrate the pan flashing and create leak holes around the fasteners
- frequently, during construction the sides of the pan are bent and beat up, and pushed down into the pan, the end dams of the pan, when this happens the upturned ends are flattened down into the pan and no longer do any good - water will run out the ends of the pan
- even more frequently, during construction the back of the pan will be crushed flat, like the ends of the pan when the ends are crushed flat, there is no back dam to keep the water out
- rarely is the pan back and sides properly bent back up, leaving the pan basically as a flat piece of metal (which is actually what is shown in the drawing)
- when the back of the pan is crushed down, unless the corners are very strong and soldered very well, the corners tear open, the usual "fix" (when it is even done) is to bend the back and ends back up and try to conceal any damage as there is but one basic repair - remove the damaged pan and replace it with a new one

Also, the Bituthene 3000 membrane is shown drawn over the vertical flashings instead of under the vertical flashings (the sheet metal "L" flashing and the front downturned edge of the pan flashing, If all goes perfectly as planned, and the Bituthene 3000 membrane is properly and fully adhered to the front of the vertical flashings, the likelihood of that joint leaking is reduced - however, if the Bituthene 3000 was laid first, and turned up the vertical surface, with the metal flashings installed over the Bituthene in shingle-fashion (which is the recommended way to install flashings), the potential for leaks would have been reduced to a much greater extent - the idea is to allow flashings to shed water shingle-fashion so the water does not get behind the next flashing down.

See the note which says "Lap per manuf. requirements (2" min) apply membrane from low point to the high point so that laps shed water."?

Same thing applies to flashings at the wall, start low and work to high (shingle-fashion).

Also see the the note to the left which says "Bituthene 3000 membrane w/4" vertical leg - fold Bituthene horizontal @ door sill & run under pan flashing."?

That would be correct, but if you look at the note on the right where it says "Bituhene 3000 membrane ... ", the arrow points to the heavier dotted line ... which does not go up and under the flashings as I described it should above.

The note on the left is correct, the arrow from the right and the heavier dotted line does not show what the note on the left says.

That is the first thing I see in that drawing.

The order of the above observations was typed as I looked over the drawing.

I apologize for the delay in getting back here, I have been busy with some projects.

Jerry Peck
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC
http://constructionlitigati...

Does anyone know how big the balcony was?

4’-5¾” x 8’-10¾” -- as reported here:http://www.berkeleyside.com...

How many times have grossly negligent business people or public officials and bureaucrats ever taken full responsibility for their damaging actions. On most occasions, they want to point the finger at someone else. Let's not give these potentially criminal individuals an excuse by arguing about the virtues of capitalism vs socialism.

Everybody. Please chill. Mistakes are made and will be corrected with fines/lawsuits etc etc. Until then, all you anti-development types, chill. Apartments don't get built for charity. Somebody has to take the risk, invest & build it. People dying from that investment is one of those risks.

Rent Board is a big bureaucracy and is known to be constant source of harassment to the very people who invest in Berkeley and try to increase house supply. This is a self serving organization with no accountability.

Please all of you, don't make daemons out of business people. Nobody wakes up and says 'I am going to make the life hell of a poor person today'. This is conspiracy mentality and won't further the cause of America, American Businesses that made America great. As they say, 'Socialism works until you run out of other people's money' Seeing this entitlement mentality among the class of Berkeley people that I consider myself among them is just wow..

The greed of American businesses seems to be a mayor reason for some of America's biggest problems. The rent for a tiny apartment in Library Gardens starts at about $2,000 per month. That's insane. In Germany it would be nearly impossible to find such an apartment for MORE than €500, and this rent would already include balconies that doesn't collapse.

The 6 students are death, you can't "correct" this "mistake" with fines or lawsuits.

I am probably paying your salary. So please don't ask me to go home. You will be homeless in that case. All I am saying, don't demonize business. Don't invent words like 'Absentee Investors'. Is Microsoft a absentee investor/business in Calcutta? All throughout history, communities thrived when they traded with each other and invest in each other. People invest in things where they see opportunity. Go back 1000 yrs if you want everything to be restricted by distance/walls etc. Even then u would find it's hard to justify what you are asking. No body is corrupting anybody. Having conspiracy theories won't further your cause. If you have prove, sue them.

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.

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.

"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."

You would need to define what you mean by "overflow pipe", however, if what you are describing is the combination temperature and pressure (T&P) relief valve discharge pipe, almost all codes require that to discharge in the room or space the water heater is in ... and if you are referring to that pipe - then it was properly routed.

Again ... IF ... if that is the pipe you are talking about, the reason for it to discharge in the room or space the water heater is in is so that YOU WILL NOTICE IT as it should not be discharging under normal conditions, IF that is the pipe you are referring to, discharge from it indicates that something is not right, and the result could be hazardous to you and other occupants.

Now, being as you stated the water heater was a tankless water heater, some codes require a T&P relief valve, as do some manufacturers, other codes may only require a pressure relief valve, as do some manufacturers. The codes require the installation to meet the code AND the manufacturer's installation instructions, whichever is more restrictive.

You may be referring to another pipe, possibly a thermal expansion pressure relief valve was installed instead of an expansion tank, or the pipe may have been for condensate for a condensing type high efficiency water heater, to name the other two likely possibilities for the pipe discharging water.

Sometimes, complaints are caused by contractors (the contractor who installed your tankless water heater) not fully explaining what is the minimum which is required to be done (codes and manufacturer's installation instructions) and what can be done to make the installation better and possibly relieve you of some of the things which can happen with regard to an installation which "meets code".

Code is, after all, 'the most unsafe one is legally allowed to construct/install something' - code is not 'good', 'better', or 'best' practices.

The National Electrical Code (which most electrician's will complain is hard to meet and excessive) contains the best wording of all of the codes in describing what the code is ... and more importantly ... is not:

- 90.1 Purpose

- - (B) Adequacy.

- - - This Code contains provisions that are considered necessary for safety. Compliance therewith and proper maintenance results in an installation that is essentially free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient, or adequate for good service or future expansion of electrical use.

I will break that down into its most important parts:
- This Code contains provisions that are considered necessary for safety.
- Compliance therewith and proper maintenance results in an installation that is
- - essentially free from hazard
- - but not necessarily
- - - efficient,
- - - convenient,
- - - or adequate for good service
- - - or future expansion of electrical use.

And contractors complain that such a code is hard to meet? Do you see where the problem is? It is not the codes.

Jerry Peck
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC.

It was the condensation line. I couldn't think of what it was called when I first posted.

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.

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.

"That's it?" I asked incredulously.

"Yup." was the answer.

What a racket!

And what did your state-mandated carbon monoxide alarm show? (Mine by the way did not function when it was needed). But did you have one?

"As of July 1, 2011, the Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Prevention Act
(Senate Bill-SB 183) requires all single-family homes with an
attached garage or a fossil fuel source to install carbon monoxide alarms within the home."

This is unusual: most requirements kick in at time of sale, including water heater bracing. This one is existing homes.

Oh right! I meant to mention that part. This was in 2012, so not an excuse, but I was behind on the mandate at the time and didn't have any. Once this happened, though, i immediately installed them everywhere!! Scary that yours did not function. Yikes.

Your blame might start with the person who installed the heater. It was someone who was licensed to do the installation, not a "handyman" or homeowner, right?

Believe me, it did start with the company that did the installation! I let them know in short order. They were horrified and told me that the guy who did my job had already been fired for a series of mishaps! But my point is that that is exactly the purpose of inspections. So you can count on the safety of your home and family since all it takes is one bad worker or one error that accidentally goes unnoticed, even when you hire a reputable company. The sole job of inspectors is to make sure the job is done safely and well. That didn't happen.

That deserves an investigation, and someone should be fired. Your whole family could be dead. I hope you take more action.

Thank you! I brought it to the attention of the department Supervisor to no avail, and then to my City Council member, to no avail. Then I gave up.

Bad reviews on Yelp are swell, but they have absolutely nothing to do with an eight year old balcony collapsing due to dry rot. This has nothing to do with possible mental maladies due to living in small apartments near fellow crybabies. Maybe, just maybe, people will stop using this tragedy as just one more opportunity to gripe about unrelated pet peeves and focus on the shoddy building construction/inspection that led to these six deaths.

right// all these tenants should also stop complaining that the call boxes out front break and dont get fixed for months and months, the sinks and drains leak and dont get repaired, mgmt does as little as possible and is rarely available ./.. none of this points to a larger problem, this was just one balcony that shouldn't have fallen but did. The City is willing to let landlords get away with all the small Visible annoyances, but we shouldn't worry that larger harder to see dangers like this balcony lurk everywhere. Or- It all ties together, and maybe if we stopped letting landlords get away with neglecting the small problems they wouldnt turn into large problems.

Segue Construction apparently doesn't think their buildings need to be built to code. http://gailmarcarelli.com/b...

Let me get this straight: a person forthright enough to state there are a lot of assumptions being made but not sure of themselves enough to identify themselves?

That creates a complete lack of trust in what is being stated.

When I saw that very first photo of the collapsed deck and what appeared to be the waterproofing membrane ...

- (if you are thinking of asking why I suspect that was the waterproofing membrane - if it was not the waterproofing membrane, then were was the waterproofing membrane ... not used? ... that would simply make the cause of the matter worse)

....with the waterproofing membrane hanging over the missing balcony like it was, the cause of the collapse was apparent: water intrusion.

Water intrusion where water is not supposed to go nor is water intended to go there, water was allowed past flashings, possibly either missing or improperly installed - the resolution in the photos shows what may be a piece of flashing here and there, but shows the lack flashing along most areas of the balcony. This lack of flashing could have been from no flashing have been installed, or it could have been from improperly installed flashing which allowed the flashing to rip out with the balcony without tearing up the bottom of the wall finish material that the flashing should have been installed behind and anchored to the structure. Missing or incorrectly installed flashing can lead to what the later photos and videos show.

A city known as being "currently the most hardest place to do anything" does not equate to excellent, good or even acceptable enforcement of building codes.

A location can have what is considered a tough code, and thorough plan review, yet be extremely lacking in quality construction.

You may be thinking "How can this be?"

The answer is simple: The building department (Authority Having Jurisdiction, or AHJ) does not have the manpower to place inspectors on the site at all times that construction is taking place. If the AHJ did have the manpower to accomplish such, the cost of a permit would be such that no permit would be affordable.

While the responsibility does not rest with the AHJ to conduct a thorough, step-by-step-by-step inspection, the AHJ is responsible for performing diligent inspections and causing corrections to be made, including stopping work of those corrections are not made.

Nonetheless, though, the final responsibility rests on the shoulders of the developer/contractor overseeing the project - THEY are the party responsible for ALL the work of ALL their subcontractors and of all workers on the job site.

It is not unusual at all to find that those prime/general contractors are pressured into accepting less, even encouraging subcontractors to accept less in the urgency to reach the ultimate goal as quickly as possible - completion of the job and collecting final payment.

After first hearing and reading about the collapse, I told colleges of mine that all other balconies in that building are suspect. I have since read that several of the other balconies have been found to be unsafe. I will repeat here: all the other balconies in that structure are suspect.

Why? Because it is likely that the same contractors constructed the other balconies in the same manner using the materials and methods as the balcony which collapsed.

The likely cause of failure was apparent at first glance.

Was that balcony overloaded? Without knowing the actual size of the balcony and its design loads, one can only make presumptions:

- Presumption 1) I have read that the balcony was approximately 5 feet by 8 feet which closely corresponds with the framing visible in the photos, if that size is correct, the balcony would have been 40 square in area. With a design live load of 60 pounds per square foot, that balcony should have a safe capacity of 2400 pounds (not including any safety factor allowance as that would be above and beyond the design loading).

- Presumption 2) Reports indicate that there were 13 people on the balcony (give or take as the reports are not completely specific to the number of people at the exact time of the collapse). If we presume that the average person weighs 190 pounds (average including males and females, and presuming that 13 people weighing 250 pounds each may not fit on a small 5 foot by 8 foot balcony), that would make the load at 2470 pounds, at the upper limit of the likely balcony design load. The safety factor included in design loads would make that extra 70 pounds a non-factor for a properly designed and properly constructed balcony.

The presumption, based on the visible evidence in the news photos and videos and the follow up inspections, is that the construction was lacking and allowed water intrusion to weaken (because of wood decay) the wood structure. The design loading issue has not, to my knowledge, been reviewed at this time. The construction has been front and center stage since the collapse.

Just another nobody from Florida.

Jerry Peck
Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC
http://constructionlitigati...

"..a dubious understanding of the code. Pretty useless."

Well then there you have it. First and foremost, building inspectors and developers should not be and should never be this cozy. That breeds the corruption that causes these things to happen. Even $5.00 worth of missing flashing can cause catastrophic damage and risk to human life. Just because you have no respect for the codes. I assure you I do. Having no respect for codes as you do is the same has having no respect for human life, as that IS the purpose of the codes. Dubious understanding indeed. Try Certificates of Competency in Building Codes. You obviously did not read my credentials before spewing. But then why would you, they are, after all, harder to read and understand than the code which you do not understand even when they are cut and pasted with highlights.

Do you know Sir that Berkeley is currently the most hardest place to do anything? Please add too much more bureaucracy to what it's already a painful City Govt to deal with do anything.

Mistakes are made. Structures fail. I think we have enough building codes already. You have to trust the system at some point and put enough safeguards that people follow processes OR they go to jail. Jail/whatever fines etc would be levied on these people. Until then back off. Stop promoting yourself and your websites.

"Do you know Sir that Berkeley is currently the most hardest place to do anything?"

Obviously not. Or this may not have happened. Guys like me go after Cities and Building Departments that do not do their job. We are proactive, not reactive.

"Mistakes are made. Structures fail. I think we have enough building codes already."

Did you not just contradict yourself?

"You have to trust the system at some point and put enough safeguards that people follow processes"

I work in that system. I am part of that system. That system is Nationwide.

"Until then back off."

Under what Authority do you have to tell a Building Inspector to back off? You obviously do not understand the process of which you speak.
There was no promotion. I wrote a piece that got posted here by someone else that contained my information. You did not have to read it or click on the link.

There will always be more building codes. There have to be as new products and new materials and inventions come into the market codes will be added. The purpose of codes is to save lives. You that think we do not need codes, or any more codes, do not understand that more of this sort of thing would occur, and at an alarming rate.

No they don't. A general complaint against the system shouldn't be pretext for more more govt bureaucracy. We have enough building codes.

I hope when you testify you base your statements on evidence. This is 4 stories of wood over s concrete podium and it is allowed by code for this level of occupancy with an NFPA approved sprinkler system.

You are allowed to increase by one story or twenty feet as long as you do not exceed 60ft from the grade plane.

Doesn't the code allow more stories with an NFPA approved sprinkler system? You are alleging a category error that is absurd. Hit the study guides again, bud!

The water proofing and flashing section of the codes that
I noted in the original publication is what caused the collapse, not the type
of structure as I stated. The engineers that are currently evaluating this have now come out and supported my opinion. So I guess you would also be arguing with them. They have agreed with me on both the water intrusion and that the number of people would not have exceeded the load requirements. The missing required flashings were clearly not present in any of the photos. As a result, people died. However; mark my words, in the end they will probably accuse the maintenance company and say it was there fault and faulty maintenance. Have seen that many times.

Yup, sure does. 20 additional feet, or 1 story. That is above grade plain to the roof mean height. Here is the kicker, not to exceed 60 feet, or 4 stories.

504.2 Automatic sprinkler system increase. Where a building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, the value specified in Table 503 for maximum building height is increased by 20 feet (6096 mm) and the maximum number of stories is increased by one. These increases are permitted in addition to the building area increase in accordance with Sections 506.2
and 506.3. For Group R buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.2, the value specified in Table 503 for maximum building height is increased by 20 feet (6096 mm) and the maximum number of stories is increased by one, but shall not exceed 60 feet (18 288 mm) or four stories, respectively.

102.1 General. Where there is a conflict between a general requirement and a specific requirement, the specific requirement shall be applicable. Where, in any specific case, different sections of this code specify different materials, methods of construction or other requirements, the most restrictive shall govern.

Now for you code experts, care to cite the story limitations for your seismic
area? Because if you look you will find we just shrank the building again.

HEIGHT,BUILDING. The vertical distance from grade plane to the average height of the highest roof surface.

GRADE PLANE. A reference plane representing the average of finished ground level adjoining the building at exterior walls. Where the finished ground level slopes away from the exterior walls, the reference plane shall be established by the lowest points within the area between the building and the lot line or, where the lot line is more than 6 feet (1829 mm) from the building, between the building and a point 6 feet (1829 mm) from the building.

Perhaps you should build to Florida's standards then: http://miami.curbed.com/arc...

Perhaps you should let us know who you are.

Guest, perhaps you could share your credentials and your name? Jeff G. Hooper is a leading expert witness in the field of construction.You could do a simple Google search to learn his credentials.

Jeff G. Hooper is a leading expert in building codes. You can see his credentials here: http://jeffghooper.com/. Please let me know where I can find yours which pertains to construction and building codes.

Unlike you, I am not ashamed to disclose who and what I am.
Could it be you have involvement here, possibly playing a little CYA? Opinions
without supporting documentation form an Authoritative Document or Source are absent and null of validity and baseless in fact and merit. The code cites I noted are from the California Building Code. For some reason you have chosen to defend the Construction and Building Departments out there. Unlike you, I have no dogs in this race, other than that my community is the nation at large. You have taken, with others, the avenue of personal attack. How does that solve the problem at hand. Are you next going to blame a stereotype and say they were drunken Irishmen? If you are Building Inspectors for the AHJ or Developers you should take a serious hard look at the possible causes and corrections, and consider all input for all sources, from all areas of the world so that this does not happen again.

They avoid building multi-story buildings with sticks in Florida because of wood destroying fungus and fire. Just because the CA building departments have decided to interpret the code to allow this type on construction doesn't make it right. And now 6 people are dead. Outrageous.

love how this got sidetracked to an endgame that = it's the code/lawmaker's fault for allowing this type of construction. The inference that if we in CA "built to FL codes these people would be alive" is beautiful, really. .. You started out saying the builders likely ignored code, now you're just slinging location based pride nonsense... now it looks like your entire argument is based on FL codes that are completely irrelevant in CA.... you cant figure out the multitude of reasons why our codes are different, you should probably stop writing articles.