4009 GRAND AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

C-J Associates, Inc. � Project No. 9020 De Sousa Residence Letter No. 1 The wall belween the new kitchen and the living room has Mro door openings in it, wRh minimal headers over the openings. However what roof framing bears on this wall is rather minimal. Foundation Retainina Wall: The foundation retdining wall is comprised of unreinforced hollow concrete masonry unit blocks, upon which rests a few bricks, which support a 6x6 "plate", which supported floor joists. There are no anchor bolts connecting the wall to any framing. Although nortnally Boorjoists would provide lateral support for a retaining wall of this nature, the configuration of the wall, bricks �nd plate prevents the joists from providing lateral support for the wall. 7he retaining wall itself reveals essen!ially no evidence of distress, deflection, or cracking. It has been in place for quite a number of years without any lateral support at the top. The foundation wall is approximately eight feet from the pavement in the alley, and there appears to be a drainage trench adjacent to the wall filled with gravel. Exterior Wall Over Retainina Wall: Removal of the floar joists has eliminated lateral bracing ai the bottom of the exterior wall. Dfacussion: Roof Su000rt: Replacement of the roof support requires a beam spanning lwenty feet, which would normally be required to support half of the 24 foot width of the roof ftaming. In order to provide proper bearinc� on this beam, new framing will be needed to transfer the rafter loads into the beam. Although esser'iially no roof loads were originally transferted to the bearing wall, we believe it would be in the best inter�sts of the owner to install new rafter bracing to transfer some of the roof load into the new beam. Regarding the wall between the kitchen and living room, modifications to the openings will require new headersupport(s). Foundation Retainina Wall: Since the floor joists provided no lateral support for the retaining wall, in our opinion, removal of these joists dces not reduce the strength of the retaining wall. Furthertnore, no new loads have been added to the wall, requiring no additional strength. The paved alley is approximately six feet from the wall. Loads imposed on the pavement would transfer downward at a thirty to forty degree angle from the vertical. This would place no additional loads on the retaining wall. In addition, since the wall exhibits no significant evidence of distress or deflection, we find no reason to attempt to strengthen it. Moreover, an excellent case could be made that attempts to strengthen the wall would in fact result in damaging it to the extent that it would have to be removed or an additional wall constructed inside the existing wall. E�erior Wall Over Retainina Wall: Although there was no mechanical connection between the original floor joists and the foundation retaining wall, there was a mechanical comiection between the joists and the exterior wall resting on them. This connection provided lateral support for the wall to resist wind and seismic loads. Calculations: Roof Suoport: Replacing the roof support lost by removing the bearing wall requires a new beam spanning twenty feet and supporting hali of the lwenty-four foot span of the roof. Our calculations indicate that a 5-1I8" x 15" GLB is needed to provide this support. This beam should be supported by 6x6 columns. Our calculations also indicate that a 4x10 header should be used for openings in the wall between the kitchen and living room that exceed four feet. Foundation Retainina Wall: Since no lateral support was in place prior to removal of the floor joists, no calculation can be done to represent the original condition. Therefore we see no need for calculation of a new lateral support. Page 2 of 3 �' � ��;� �