Header For Garage Man Door

[Alias]

This is particularly true in Sue's case in the State of Jefferson, she is now having to enforce radical left-wing political codes like our Green and Energy Codes in an area with a very conservative population, to say nothing of a commercially generated requirement like the fire sprinkler mandate. These code mandates alone could cause a ground swell for the secession of several counties from Southern Oregon and Northern California and the formation of the new State of Jefferson, a movement derailed by WWII but gaining momentum again as our society becomes more totalitarian. I don't think that Sue would make a good "Green Policeman".

No matter what you call the new enforcement requirements, it really boils down to the fact that the "one size fits all" principal coming from the legislature is false. California has a minimum of three different areas, each with its own unique characteristics. It is just flat impossible to enforce rules and regs that are really tailored for the majority of the state - i.e. - SF Bay Area, LA, San Diego, and Sacramento in rural CA where you don't have the infrastructure, programs, funding, or personnel to support the latest mandates

from Sacramento.

I think that it is time again to revisit the subject of dividing CA into three states, not just one. Sorry this went so far off topic. I can only take so much............:mrgreen::cowboy

 

[conarb]

Sue:

I agree, we in the Bay Area have long wanted to separate from "plastic" Southern California, in fact that was one of the messages in the 1967 movie "The Graduate":

The Graduate (1967) is one of the key, ground-breaking films of the late 1960s, and helped to set in motion a new era of film-making. The influential film is a biting satire/comedy about a recent nebbish, East Coast college graduate who finds himself alienated and adrift in the shifting, social and sexual mores of the 1960s, and questioning the values of society (with its keyword "plastics"). The themes of the film also mirrored the changes occurring in Hollywood, as a new vanguard of younger directors were coming to the forefront. Avant-garde director Mike Nichols, following his debut success of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) with this second film, instantly became a major new talent in American film after winning an Academy Award for his directorship. The theme of an innocent and confused youth who is exploited, mis-directed, seduced (literally and figuratively) and betrayed by a corrupt, decadent, and discredited older generation (that finds its stability in "plastics") was well understood by film audiences and captured the spirit of the times. One of the film's posters proclaimed the difficult coming-of-age for the recent, aimless college graduate: Ben is hesitant, embarrassed by all the attention, and lacking in social graces. By the family swimming pool, Ben receives words of advice from Mr. McGuire (Walter Brooke), a family friend, in one of the most memorable lines from film history:

Mr. McGuire:

I just want to say one word to you - just one word.

Ben: Yes sir.

Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?

Ben: Yes I am.

Mr. McGuire:

'Plastics.'

Ben: Exactly how do you mean?

Mr. McGuire: There's a great future in plastics. Think about it. Will you think about it?

Ben: Yes I will.

Mr. McGuire: Shh! Enough said. That's a deal.

[in fact, history would prove Mr. McGuire's advice to be prescient and wise!] ¹

And I can well see why conservative rural California would want to separate from all the left-wing/socialist wackos here in the Bay Area, in fact my dream is to retire in one of the rural mountain areas of California, if you do secede I'll be up there with you. ¹ http://www.filmsite.org/grad.html

 

[Alias]

Update on the garage project. I did a walk through today with the owners and found a few more minor items.

1. headers over all windows and man door are a 2"x12" on end, like the picture. 2007 CBC Sec. 2308.9.5.1

2. missing washers and nuts on anchor bolts.

3. nailing pattern on exterior siding fluctuates so wildly it is indescribable - 3.5, then 4, then 3 inches.........all on one small panel on the gable end. panels below have a minimum spacing of about 13" oc on edges, negligible for the field.

4. 9' walls - There is an enclosed soffit at 8' on front and back sides of the garage. On the back wall in the interior it feels as if there is no exterior siding above 8' mark. Housewrap is there and when pushed on I could feel no siding behind it. Enclosed soffit is covering the area where I think the siding is missing so I am unable to ascertain if the siding is there or not. There is also no blocking on any of the walls.

So, I guess that my main question is is #4 a common practice? Somewhere in my memory from the UBC/CBC it required blocking if the walls were over 8' in height. Or am I just having a flashback?

 

[MtnArch]

I think your question on #4 goes back to blocking being required at all ceiling changes, which would include the soffit.

 

[JBI]

Blocking is probably moot for an unfinished wall. For everything else...

Document the deviations, get the proper information from the contractor - including how it meets the code AND the approved plans, if there is a DPR seal then they will need to review as well.

Demonstrating code compliance may well be easy - I agree that there appears to be a gable above, so limited vertical load - however the owner is entitled to get what they paid for. Code compliance is the minimum, but they may have paid for more.

 

[TimNY]

Since you mentioned seismic requirements in a previous post, the situation with the sheathing and soffit may be an issue.

I think you will find that the plywood is required to lap the top plate unless the designer has drawn a different method. Is this under the prescriptive requirements of the code, or is it required to be designed in accordance with a referenced standard?

I would call the designer and see what he/she has to say. I have found they are generally receptive if you call them for help.

 

[Rio]

2" in 32' is 0.52% error.Unless it's related to zoning, it seems trifling.

Sounds like you're looking for gotcha's.

Regarding this it's really simple to have a small discrepancy. If you have a set of plans where the plans have the finished floor plans dimensioned and you use that to build by, when you do the foundation it will be 32', then when you apply the exterior finish, say stucco, you've added an inch on either side and suddenly it's 32'-2". This happens a lot. Usually it was done unintentionally and as pointed out it really is a trifling difference.

Regarding the header that is a way of doing them that used to be very common, at least from the old houses we've torn into. This way of doing them is coming back into vogue with the push for getting more insulation and reducing thermal bridging coming into the forefront of housing requirements.[/i]

 

[Alias]

Since you mentioned seismic requirements in a previous post, the situation with the sheathing and soffit may be an issue.I think you will find that the plywood is required to lap the top plate unless the designer has drawn a different method. Is this under the prescriptive requirements of the code, or is it required to be designed in accordance with a referenced standard?

I would call the designer and see what he/she has to say. I have found they are generally receptive if you call them for help.

Tim -

Thanks for the suggestion. The garage is designed using prescriptive standards. I'm going out with the designer today to look at it. As there were no plans on site, I pulled mine out this AM and looked at them again while writing the correction notice. What I found -

1. Window headers - 4"x 8" min. DF #2 or better (plans)

2. Man door header - 4" x 6" min. DF #2 or better (plans)

3. 9' rear wall - Three portions are brace wall panels per plans. 8' doesn't cut it.

4. Nailing - standard for CA - 6" oc on edge, 12" oc in field. Their nailing is so far off that it isn't funny. (plans)

I am going to require them to at least remove the siding from the boxed in soffit to prove that the wall panels are truly per plans.

Sorry for the kvetching, this is the contractor's third project and they are still screwing up on the basics. I am getting tired of the learning curve being flat with these guys ........... :beatdhrs

 

[FredK]

Sue, The minimum header I'd approve is the 4x's unless they show a change order from the owners requesting something equal.

 

[TimNY]

Glad to hear the designer is willing to help out with the project. Do let us know what the designer's thoughts were.

If the plans called for 4x, I would require the 4x, especially if it is sealed and signed. If they want to place a call to the designer and get something else approved, that's fine. I have had the occasional designer try to belittle me for such a trivial change. My response is I am trying to protect their design and I am too stupid to figure it out by myself (they like that). Most designers are thankful that somebody is actually inspecting.

As much as I sometimes get frustrated, I always try to remember that eventually it is the owner that pays the price. I think you and the designer can get it worked out. Unfortunately, working for the benefit of the owner sometimes means you have to spoon-feed the contractor.

 

[GHRoberts]

While the plans show a 4x, did the plans get approved because it met the prescriptive code (2x) or because it was engineered (4x)?

I have often included a set of specifications that exceeded the prescriptions. From my point of view the only reason was for insurance reasons. Unless I was responsible for doing the construction I had no interest in if the prescriptions were followed or my drawings were followed.

Unless engineering was required I expect the builder has the option of following the prescriptions.

 

[TimNY]

I see your point GHR, you do it to cover your butt.. same reason I take my position.

A line has to be drawn somewhere. I don't like being in the position of figuring out if a certain portion of the structure was engineered or if something exceeds the minimum code just because the designer felt like doing it that way.

If we can get the designer on the phone for something simple like this and he says, "no problem", that's good enough for me on a small detail like this.

If you called out a parallam for a girder and the contractor put a 2x girder that meets the prescriptive code I am not sure all designers would be so amicable. How would an inspector know if it is acceptable.. Maybe there is something we don't see.

To reiterate, I do concur that this is a pretty simple issue. But in an effort to try and keep some modicum of enforcement policy I would get input from the designer.

 

[JBI]

George, the plans were approved. The project approval was based on the approved plans. If someone wants to change the plans, they need to get the changes approved BEFORE there's a problem/question/issue, not after.

 

[FredK]

While the plans show a 4x, did the plans get approved because it met the prescriptive code (2x) or because it was engineered (4x)?...........

Short answer I look for what was submitted and approved. In this case a 4x.

If it's a 4x then his plans should be checked for it in the office and field. Want to substitute something out there it's a change order and I want the mommy note for my file plus it may need to be rechecked in the office. I don't do field calcs.

 

[DRP]

To play devil's advocate;

I would respond that only those items that surpass prescriptive design need to be engineered. If I can make an item prescriptive that was engineered on the plan, I believe I can. When we should discuss that is no doubt another issue.

 

[JBI]

I should qualify some of my statements... In NYS, there is a legal obligation for the Municipality to document everything. Subsequently there is a local law/ordinance requiring the Code Enforcement Official to do the same for the Municipality. There is also the issue of liability if the CEO 'accepts' a change without DPR approval.

 

[Alias]

Glad to hear the designer is willing to help out with the project. Do let us know what the designer's thoughts were.If the plans called for 4x, I would require the 4x, especially if it is sealed and signed. If they want to place a call to the designer and get something else approved, that's fine. I have had the occasional designer try to belittle me for such a trivial change. My response is I am trying to protect their design and I am too stupid to figure it out by myself (they like that). Most designers are thankful that somebody is actually inspecting.

As much as I sometimes get frustrated, I always try to remember that eventually it is the owner that pays the price. I think you and the designer can get it worked out. Unfortunately, working for the benefit of the owner sometimes means you have to spoon-feed the contractor.

Both designers from the same office met me at the site. The one I know best agreed with me on several issues, mainly the exterior panel nailing, blocking at 8' height around entire garage, and the lack of a contiguous 9' panel from sill plate to top plate for the brace wall panels. Headers are going to be doubled. Correction notice has been written and delivered to the homeowner. I am requiring the enclosed soffit to be removed so that the top of the walls can be inspected where the panel is supposed to be nailed at the top plate. Now it is just waiting on the contractor.

Thanks everyone for the input, seismic problems seem to be the order of the day this time.

 

[GHRoberts]

To play devil's advocate;I would respond that only those items that surpass prescriptive design need to be engineered. If I can make an item prescriptive that was engineered on the plan, I believe I can. When we should discuss that is no doubt another issue.

I guess what we really need are engineers inspecting engineered work. I would prefer the designer, but the AHJ could hire an engineer.