FChen
REGISTERED
Header review at 7873 Peachtree Ave, Newark, CA 94560
We bought the property in 1982. The property original was a 3 bed rm, living rm, kitchen, 1 bath rm single family home built in 1971. (See page 1/9 of the attachment.) An addition of additional family rm, 2 bed rm, and 1 bath rm was built in 1977. (See page 2/9, 3/9, & 5/9 of the attachment.) We are applying a permit to reset/repair some structures for sheet rocks, bath rooms, and kitchen which were removed due to water damages. The city of Newark found that the opening with the subject header at the wall between the kitchen and the family room (See page 3/9 & 6/9 to 7/9 of the attachment.) was not shown in any permit on record. The original opening was at the wall between the living room and the family room as shown in the drawings of addition. (See page 2/9 of the attachment.) We did not change it after we bought the property for sure. We believe that the previous owners demanded the change of the opening location during the construction of the addition and got approval from then city inspector without the change of the construction drawings in file because in that age only plans are required and the approval was per Building Code only. The subject header (See the picture in the attachments and page 3/9, 6/9, 7/9, 8/9, & 9/9.) encountered 1989 big earthquake and no damage or any weakness sign at all. Anyway, we are required to show the subject header meets the current CBC.
The following is our understanding and opinion: In review of Roof Plan (See page 3/9 & 7/9 of the attachment.) only RG1 Roof and its ceiling in the kitchen area will distrbute the vertical loads on the subject header because only the RG1 roof joists ( also served as bottom chord of the roof trusts), which are in the kitchen area, sitting on the top of the bearing wall and the subject header between the kitchen and the family room and the bearing wall between the kitchen and the garage. The RG2 roof and its joists (also served as bottom chords of the roof trusts), which are parallel to the subject header in the adjacent family room area, sitting on the top of the west outside exterior bearing wall and the interior bearing wall between the family room and the living room and so do their loads. (See page 3/9 of the attachment.) Per current 2022 CA Building Code (CBC), Table 602.7 ( 1 ) and its note c, For RG1 roof and its ceiling in kitchen area, the building width can be conservatively using the 10’0” which is the distance between the south bearing wall and north bearing wall for RG1 in kitchen area. For RG2 roof and its ceiling in the family area, since the perpendicular direction of RG2 is parallel to the subject header and no vertical load distribution pathway goes through the subject header, the building width for RG2 is considered o ft. So we use 10’o” from RG1 as building width. The allowable span from the Table 602.1.7 (1) is 10’7” for the following conditions:
GIRDERS AND HEADERS SUPPORTING: Roof and ceiling
SIZE: 2-2x12
GROUND SNOW LOAD (psf): 30 VS 0 psf for Newark, CA and live load 20 psf
Building width (feet): 12 allowable VS 10 actual
Header span: 12’7” allowable VS 10’0” actual
NJ: 2 required at each end VS 2 at east end and 3 at west end
The top of the header is laterally braced by perpendicular framing.
Conclusion: The subject header meets all conditions and requirements listed in current CA BC Table 602.2.7 ( 1 ).
The conclusion above is our opinion only. We knew there was a different interpretation of the width of building. We would like to hear other
Header review at 7873 Peachtree Ave, Newark, CA 94560
Attachment : (Double click on the file area to open the file.)
We bought the property in 1982. The property original was a 3 bed rm, living rm, kitchen, 1 bath rm single family home built in 1971. (See page 1/9 of the attachment.) An addition of additional family rm, 2 bed rm, and 1 bath rm was built in 1977. (See page 2/9, 3/9, & 5/9 of the attachment.) We are applying a permit to reset/repair some structures for sheet rocks, bath rooms, and kitchen which were removed due to water damages. The city of Newark found that the opening with the subject header at the wall between the kitchen and the family room (See page 3/9 & 6/9 to 7/9 of the attachment.) was not shown in any permit on record. The original opening was at the wall between the living room and the family room as shown in the drawings of addition. (See page 2/9 of the attachment.) We did not change it after we bought the property for sure. We believe that the previous owners demanded the change of the opening location during the construction of the addition and got approval from then city inspector without the change of the construction drawings in file because in that age only plans are required and the approval was per Building Code only. The subject header (See the picture in the attachments and page 3/9, 6/9, 7/9, 8/9, & 9/9.) encountered 1989 big earthquake and no damage or any weakness sign at all. Anyway, we are required to show the subject header meets the current CBC.
The following is our understanding and opinion: In review of Roof Plan (See page 3/9 & 7/9 of the attachment.) only RG1 Roof and its ceiling in the kitchen area will distrbute the vertical loads on the subject header because only the RG1 roof joists ( also served as bottom chord of the roof trusts), which are in the kitchen area, sitting on the top of the bearing wall and the subject header between the kitchen and the family room and the bearing wall between the kitchen and the garage. The RG2 roof and its joists (also served as bottom chords of the roof trusts), which are parallel to the subject header in the adjacent family room area, sitting on the top of the west outside exterior bearing wall and the interior bearing wall between the family room and the living room and so do their loads. (See page 3/9 of the attachment.) Per current 2022 CA Building Code (CBC), Table 602.7 ( 1 ) and its note c, For RG1 roof and its ceiling in kitchen area, the building width can be conservatively using the 10’0” which is the distance between the south bearing wall and north bearing wall for RG1 in kitchen area. For RG2 roof and its ceiling in the family area, since the perpendicular direction of RG2 is parallel to the subject header and no vertical load distribution pathway goes through the subject header, the building width for RG2 is considered o ft. So we use 10’o” from RG1 as building width. The allowable span from the Table 602.1.7 (1) is 10’7” for the following conditions:
GIRDERS AND HEADERS SUPPORTING: Roof and ceiling
SIZE: 2-2x12
GROUND SNOW LOAD (psf): 30 VS 0 psf for Newark, CA and live load 20 psf
Building width (feet): 12 allowable VS 10 actual
Header span: 12’7” allowable VS 10’0” actual
NJ: 2 required at each end VS 2 at east end and 3 at west end
The top of the header is laterally braced by perpendicular framing.
Conclusion: The subject header meets all conditions and requirements listed in current CA BC Table 602.2.7 ( 1 ).
The conclusion above is our opinion only. We knew there was a different interpretation of the width of building. We would like to hear other
Header review at 7873 Peachtree Ave, Newark, CA 94560
Attachment : (Double click on the file area to open the file.)
