PACIFIC TREE CARE
A division of J Allan Schneider Corp. CCL 672522
Jacob I. Schneider Certified Arborist WE-5478A
Estate Yountville Restaurant 3-31-2025
Boardwalk Investment
Attn.: Gary Jabara
1945 Placentia Ave. Bldg D, Costa Mesa, CA 92627
RE: Estate Yountville Restaurant
6539 Washington St., Yountville, CA
On Friday 2/7/25, Jake Schneider and I visited the Estate Yountville Restaurant site at 6539 Washington Street in Yountville to take a closer look at the Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) Heritage Tree (Tree #23).
Backen & Backen Architecture asked us to help with a tree-friendly design for proposed site improvements. A Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara) (Tree #18) should also be considered for special protection.
The initial tree assessment and mapping was performed on Tuesday 1/28/25 and consisted of 28 trees in total, all of which will be included in our proposed Tree Protection Plan (TPP) for the project. We were provided with the attached PDF elevation details, and Backen & Backen Architecture requested that we provide recommendations on how to accomplish this development project while minimizing any impact on significant site trees.
Overall, we feel that the proposed improvements are feasible based upon our site review and the provided drawings. It is worth noting that Tree #23 retains a heavy lean and structural defects that predispose it to future structural failure. When digging to establish foundation improvements and patio sub-grade within the Tree Protection Zones, it must be done carefully, assisted by an air compressor or done by hand to avoid significant root damage. During the excavation, an Arborist should be monitoring the progress and root pruning, or retention, should be a “field call” with the trees best interest in mind.
The Coast Live Oak’s (Tree #23) root system appears to extend underneath the existing pathway, up to the foundation wall on the North side of the building and has (we assume based on location) partially uplifted some of the brick pavers. The proposed design, as drawn, for the new patio in this area appears to accommodate the tree’s roots and avoid any significant root pruning. We do not recommend large root pruning on this tree, especially on the South side of the stem. The tree leans heavily to the Northwest.
The proposed subgrade preparation for the patio could impact approximately 50% of this tree’s root system. We may recommend an elevated design option for a portion of the patio, if needed, in the area where significant roots are likely to be present. We realize this will create ADA and drainage challenges, so we propose pre-excavating exploratory trenches with compressed air to map the existing root system to be sure we can accommodate the current design. The proposed pier and grade beam foundation beneath the “Moment Frames” at the current building edge (sheet S2.0) and the pier and grade beam design of the brick veneer wall at the patio perimeter (sheets AR4.0 and AR4.1) are tree-friendly options.
Our principal concern is the amount of soil stabilization around the proposed foundation that may be required for engineering. Depending on the soil stabilization needed, switching to a drilled pier style foundation might be a more viable option to minimize the impact on the tree if it means less overall subgrade preparation. Per the soils report, the extent of subgrade preparation will be determined in the field, as the soil structure is analyzed during the initial excavation process.
The Deodar Cedar (Tree #18) will also be impacted by the proposed patio addition to the front of the building. However, the proposed design, as drawn, for the new patio in this area appearsto accommodate the tree’s roots and avoid any significant root pruning. On sheet AR2.3 of the provided “AR2-3 Plan with
PACIFIC TREE CARE
A division of J Allan Schneider Corp. CCL 672522
Jacob I. Schneider Certified Arborist WE-5478A
Estate Yountville Restaurant 3-31-2025
Extent of Permeable Pavers” document, it appears that the sand set paver patio extends to the Northeast corner, with minimal impact within the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) from the proposed neighboring slab (sheet A4.1). We recommend minimal soil stabilization (if required) within the TPZ of this tree.
We are happy to provide a comprehensive Tree Protection Program for the entire site once site plans are finalized, and encourage your team to work directly with us as the design progresses. Attached are a conceptual Tree Protection Zone map, a Critical Root Zone map, the provided architectural drawings, and the individual tree assessments for trees #18 and #23.
For any concerns or questions please feel free to contact me at (707) 942-0261.
Sheree Muller
ISA Certified Arborist WE-15500A
Pacific Tree Care
O. 7079420261
C. 7073224723
Estate Yountville Restaurant Tree #18
and Tree #23
Pacific Tree Care
March 28, 2025 |
Total Tree Count: 2
3/28/25, 8:41 AM Tree Summary Report (1)
https://pg-cloud.com/reportingsystem/pacifictreecare/standard/oneTreePerPage/26e5cb3229d81e50?covertitle=Estate Yountville Restaurant Tree %23… 1/6 Deodar cedar Site ID #18
6481 Washington Street
Tree Details
Common Name: Deodar cedar
Scientific Name: Cedrus deodara
Priority: Medium
DBH: 36
Tree Height
(Estimated): 70
Tree Protection Zone
(TPZ): 36
Critical Root Zone
(CRZ): 18
Crown Spread: 40
Status: Alive
Condition: Good
Canopy Shape: Asymmetrical
ObservationsCharacteristics:
Co-dominant limbs,
Dead Branches, Heavy
branch tip weight, Dead
Branches over 2 inch
diameter
Observations-Biotic
Pest:
Observations-Abiotic:
Observation
Comments:
Competing leads at top,
overhangs walkway
Tree Work-Pruning:
Structure Prune remove
competitive
leads/branches,
Reduce branch tip
weight with 1-3 inch
cuts, Crown Clean, 3/4
inch diameter dead
branches and greater
Tree Work-PHC:
Tree Work-Other:
Monitor: No
Last Inspection:
Inspection Cycle:
Management Notes:
Risk Assessment
Consequence of
Failure: Severe
Likelihood of Failure: Possible
Likelihood of Impacting
Target: High
Likelihood: Somewhat Likely
Assessed Tree Part:
Risk Rating: Moderate
Photos
image.jpg
1/28/2025
3/28/25, 8:41 AM Tree Summary Report (1)
https://pg-cloud.com/reportingsystem/pacifictreecare/standard/oneTreePerPage/26e5cb3229d81e50?covertitle=Estate Yountville Restaurant Tree %23… 2/6 Coast Live Oak Site ID #23
6539 Washington Street
Tree Details
Common Name: Coast Live Oak
Scientific Name: Quercus agrifolia
Priority: High
DBH: 31
Tree Height
(Estimated): 35
Tree Protection Zone
(TPZ): 31
Critical Root Zone
(CRZ): 15.5
Crown Spread: 50
Status: Alive
Condition: Good
Canopy Shape: Asymmetrical
ObservationsCharacteristics:
Broken limb, Included
bark, Dead Branches,
Crack, Leaning trunk,
Weak attachments,
Vine growth, Heavy
branch tip weight,
Encroaches on
structure
Observations-Biotic
Pest:
Observations-Abiotic:
Observation
Comments:
Heritage Oak,
overhangs driveway
and building, broken
and hanging branch
stuck between stems,
minimal vine growth at
base of stem, canopy is
thin, horizontal crack in
one limb on building
side, poor attachments
with included bark,
heavy lean towards
North/Northwest, will
require multiple cable
and bolt installations to
mitigate poor
Risk Assessment
Consequence of
Failure: Severe
Likelihood of Failure: Probable
Likelihood of Impacting
Target: High
Likelihood: Likely
Assessed Tree Part: Trunk
Risk Rating: High
Photos
image.jpg
1/28/2025
3/28/25, 8:41 AM Tree Summary Report (1)
https://pg-cloud.com/reportingsystem/pacifictreecare/standard/oneTreePerPage/26e5cb3229d81e50?covertitle=Estate Yountville Restaurant Tree %23… 4/6 attachments and
cracked limbs
Tree Work-Pruning:
Clearance Prune from
roof , Reduce branch tip
weight with 1-3 inch
cuts, Install Cable
System see notes,
Examine root collar,
Sound stem for decay,
Detail Crown Clean, 1/2
inch diameter dead and
greater
Tree Work-PHC: Mycorrhizae
inoculations
Tree Work-Other:
Monitor: No
Last Inspection:
Inspection Cycle:
Management Notes:
Last Modified User: Sheree
IMG_4306.jpeg
2/24/2025
IMG_4308.jpeg
2/24/2025
3/28/25, 8:41 AM Tree Summary Report (1)
https://pg-cloud.com/reportingsystem/pacifictreecare/standard/oneTreePerPage/26e5cb3229d81e50?covertitle=Estate Yountville Restaurant Tree %23… 5/6 IMG_4307.jpeg
2/24/2025
3/28/25, 8:41 AM Tree Summary Report (1)
https://pg-cloud.com/reportingsystem/pacifictreecare/standard/oneTreePerPage/26e5cb3229d81e50?covertitle=Estate Yountville Restaurant Tree %23… 6/6 Experience is the difference
GEOTECHNICAL STUDY REPORT
GROEZINGER WINERY BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS, RESTAURANT ADDITION, AND
TRAIN STATION
THE ESTATE YOUNTVILLE
6539 WASHINGTON STREET
YOUNTVILLE, CALIFORNIA
Project Number:
7767.01.04.2
Prepared For:
Boardwalk Investment Group
Attention: Astrid Collins
[email protected]
Prepared By:
RGH Consultants
Santa Rosa Office Napa Office
3501 Industrial Drive, Suite A 1041 Jefferson Street, Suite 4 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 Napa, CA 94559
707-544-1072 707-252-8105
_______________________ _______________________
Jared J. Pratt Eric G. Chase
Principal Engineering Geologist Principal Geotechnical Engineer Project Manager
December 22, 2023
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................... 1 SCOPE ................................................................................................................................................................... 1 STUDY ................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Site Exploration....................................................................................................................................... 2 Laboratory Testing.................................................................................................................................. 3 SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 3 General.................................................................................................................................................... 3 Geology ................................................................................................................................................... 3 Surface .................................................................................................................................................... 3 Subsurface............................................................................................................................................... 4 Existing Footings..................................................................................................................................... 4 Corrosion Potential................................................................................................................................. 4 Groundwater .......................................................................................................................................... 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................... 5 Seismic Hazards...................................................................................................................................... 5 Faulting and Seismicity.............................................................................................................. 5 Liquefaction............................................................................................................................... 5 Geotechnical Issues................................................................................................................................ 6 General...................................................................................................................................... 6 Heterogeneous Fill .................................................................................................................... 6 Weak, Porous Surface Soil ........................................................................................................ 7 Foundation and Slab Support...................................................................................... 7 On-Site Soil Quality ................................................................................................................... 7 Engineered Fill........................................................................................................................... 7 Settlement................................................................................................................................. 7 Surface Drainage....................................................................................................................... 8 RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................................................................... 8 Seismic Design ........................................................................................................................................ 8 Grading.................................................................................................................................................... 8 Site Preparation......................................................................................................................... 8 Stripping .................................................................................................................................... 9 Excavations................................................................................................................................ 9 Fill Quality.................................................................................................................................. 9 Import Fill ................................................................................................................................10 Fill Placement..........................................................................................................................10 Wet Weather Grading.............................................................................................................11 Foundation Support..............................................................................................................................12 Groezinger Winery Building - Spread Footings.......................................................................12 Restaurant Addition - Spread Footings...................................................................................12 Train Station - Spread Footings...............................................................................................12 Bearing Pressures......................................................................................................12 Lateral Pressures .......................................................................................................12 Footing Excavations ................................................................................................................13 Slab-On-Grade ......................................................................................................................................13 Utility Trenches.....................................................................................................................................13 Geotechnical Drainage .........................................................................................................................14 Slab Underdrains.....................................................................................................................14 Maintenance.........................................................................................................................................14 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)
ii
Supplemental Services..........................................................................................................................15 Pre-Bid Meeting ......................................................................................................................15 Plan and Specifications Review...............................................................................................15 Construction Observation and Testing...................................................................................15 LIMITATIONS.......................................................................................................................................................16
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - PLATES................................................................................................................... A-1 APPENDIX B - REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... B-1 APPENDIX C - DISTRIBUTION........................................................................................................ C-1
INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical study for the planned structural and architectural upgrades to the historic Groezinger Winery building, an addition to the old Penny Lang restaurant building, and a new train station building to be constructed in Yountville, California. The property extends over relatively level terrain and contains the historic Groezinger Winery building, the old Penny Lang restaurant building, eight smaller structures, and three asphalt paved parking areas. The site location is shown on Plate 1, Appendix A.
We understand it is planned to upgrade the historic winery building both structurally and architecturally.
As part of the upgrades, new foundations elements will be required to support shear walls, braced frames, and roof trusses among other items. We understand that an addition will be added to the existing restaurant building. As part of the construction, the existing kitchen, restroom portion, and basement of the structure will remain. The dining portions of the existing structure will be demolished and rebuilt with a larger structure that projects out toward Washington Street over the current lawn area. A new train station building is planned north of the winery building within the parking lot.
Actual foundation loads are not known at this time. We anticipate the loads will be typical for the light to moderately heavy type of construction planned. Grading plans are not available, but we anticipate that the planned grading will be the minimum amount needed to provide the building sites and paved areas with positive drainage.
SCOPE
The purpose of our study, as outlined in our Professional Service Agreement dated August 22, 2023 (Revised September 22, 2023) and Additional Services Request dated October 12, 2023, was to generate geotechnical information for the design and construction of the project. Our scope of services included reviewing selected published geologic data pertinent to the site; evaluating the subsurface conditions with borings, hand dug test pits, and laboratory tests; analyzing the field and laboratory data; and presenting this report with the following geotechnical information:
1. A brief description of the soil and groundwater conditions observed during our study;
2. A discussion of seismic hazards that may affect the proposed improvements; and
3. Conclusions and recommendations regarding:
a. Primary geotechnical engineering concerns and mitigating measures, as applicable; b. Site preparation and grading including remedial grading of weak, porous, compressible surface soil;
c. Foundation type, design criteria, and estimated settlement behavior; d. Support of concrete slabs-on-grade;
e. Geotechnical engineering drainage improvements; and
f. Supplemental geotechnical engineering services.
RGH
CONSULTANTS
Geotechnical Study Report Groezinger Winery Building Improvements and Restaurant Addition
December 22, 2023 Project Number: 7767.01.04.2
STUDY
Site Exploration
We reviewed our previous geotechnical studies in the vicinity and selected geologic references pertinent to the site. The geologic literature reviewed is listed in Appendix B. On November 6, 2023, we performed a geotechnical reconnaissance of the site and explored the subsurface conditions by drilling five borings to depths ranging from about 10½ to 17 feet. The borings were drilled with a portable drill rig equipped with 4-inch diameter, solid stem augers at the approximate locations shown on the Exploration Plan, Plate
2. In addition, we explored the subsurface conditions of the existing winery building by hand digging three test pits to depths ranging from 18 inches to 48 inches. The test pits were dug with hand tools at the approximate locations shown on the Exploration Plan, Plate 2. The boring and test pit locations were determined approximately by pacing their distance from features shown on the Exploration Plan and should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. Our project engineer located and logged the borings and test pits and obtained samples of the materials encountered for visual examination, classification, and laboratory testing.
Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained from the borings at selected intervals by driving a 2.43- inch inside diameter, split spoon sampler, containing 6-inch-long brass liners, using a 140-pound hammer dropping approximately 30 inches. The sampler was driven 12 to 18 inches. The blows required to drive each 6-inch increment were recorded and the blows required to drive the last 12 inches, or portion thereof, were converted to equivalent Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow counts for correlation with empirical data. Disturbed samples were also obtained at selected depths by driving a 1.375-inch inside diameter (2-inch outside diameter) SPT sampler, without liners or rings, using a 140-pound hammer dropping approximately 30 inches. The sampler was driven 12 to 18 inches, the blows to drive each 6-inch increment were recorded, and the blows required to drive the final 12 inches, or portion thereof, are provided on the boring logs.
The logs of the borings showing the materials encountered, groundwater conditions, converted blow counts, and sample depths are presented on Plates 3 through 7. The logs of the hand dug test pits are presented on Plate 8. The soil is described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, outlined on Plate 9.
The boring logs show our interpretation of the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions on the date and at the locations indicated. Subsurface conditions may vary at other locations and times. Our interpretation is based on visual inspection of soil samples, laboratory test results, and interpretation of drilling and sampling resistance. The location of the soil boundaries should be considered approximate.
The transition between soil types may be gradual.
RGH
CONSULTANTS
Geotechnical Study Report Groezinger Winery Building Improvements and Restaurant Addition
December 22, 2023 Project Number: 7767.01.04.2
Laboratory Testing
The samples obtained from the borings were transported to our office and re-examined to verify soil classifications, evaluate characteristics, and assign tests pertinent to our analysis. Selected samples were laboratory tested to determine their water content, dry density, classification (Atterberg Limits, percent of silt and clay), expansion potential (Expansion Index - EI), and shear strength. The test results are presented on the boring logs and on Plates 10 through 14.
SITE CONDITIONS
General
Napa County is located within the California Coast Range geomorphic province. This province is a geologically complex and seismically active region characterized by sub-parallel northwest-trending faults, mountain ranges and valleys. The oldest bedrock units are the Jurassic-Cretaceous Franciscan Complex and Great Valley sequence sediments originally deposited in a marine environment. Subsequently, younger rocks such as the Tertiary-age Sonoma Volcanics group, the Plio-Pleistocene-age Clear Lake Volcanics and sedimentary rocks such as the Guinda, Domengine, Petaluma, Wilson Grove, Cache, Huichica and Glen Ellen formations were deposited throughout the province. Extensive folding and thrust faulting during late Cretaceous through early Tertiary geologic time created complex geologic conditions that underlie the highly varied topography of today. In valleys, the bedrock is covered by thick alluvial soil.
Geology
Published geologic maps (Bezore et al., 2005) indicate the property is underlain by Pleistocene fan deposits (Qpf) and the latest Pleistocene to Holocene alluvial fan deposits (Qf). The alluvial fan deposits are shown to consist of moderately to poorly sorted and bedded sand, gravel, silt, and clay.
Surface
The property extends primarily over relatively level terrain. The vegetation consists of landscaped grass areas, bushes, and mature trees. The building site is located off Washington Street. In general, the ground surface is moderately hard. However, soil in the area that appears hard and strong when dry will typically lose strength rapidly and settle under the loads of fills, foundations and slabs as its moisture content increases and approaches saturation. This typically occurs because the surface soil is weak, porous, and compressible. Natural drainage consists of sheet flow over the ground surface that concentrates in manmade surface drainage elements such as street gutters.
RGH
CONSULTANTS
Geotechnical Study Report Groezinger Winery Building Improvements and Restaurant Addition
December 22, 2023 Project Number: 7767.01.04.2
Subsurface
Our borings and laboratory tests indicate that the portion of the site we studied is blanketed by 3 to 4½ feet of sandy clayey soil. This soil exhibits low plasticity (LL = 26.8, 27.0. 30.0; PI = 7.8, 9.1, 9.4) and very low to low expansion potential (EI = 15, 18, 22). In the train station area, these soils are generally weak to a depth of about 3 feet. It is possible that the surface soil could also be porous in the areas of the train station that are outside of existing pavement areas. Porous soil appears hard and strong when dry but becomes weak and compressible as its moisture content increases towards saturation. The surface soil is locally covered by about 5 feet of heterogeneous fill in boring B-1. Heterogeneous fill is a material with varying density, strength, compressibility, and shrink-swell characteristics that often has an unknown origin and placement history. These surface materials are underlain by clay with varying amounts of sand and gravel and sand with varying amounts of clay and gravel.
A detailed description of the subsurface conditions found in our borings is given on Plates 3 through 7, Appendix A. Based on Table 20.3-1 of American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Standard 7-16, titled “Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures” (2017), we have determined a Site Class of D should be used for the site.
Existing Footings
We dug three test pits (labelled HTP) around the Groezinger Winery building, with locations indicated on the Exploration Plan, Plate 2, Appendix A. At HTP-1, the bottom of the existing footing is about 30 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface. The top of the footing is 12 inches down and then extends about 12 inches out from the structure and is 18 inches thick. At HTP-3, the bottom of the existing footing is about 4 feet below the lowest adjacent ground surface. The top of the footing is about 3 feet down and extends 10 inches from the building and is 12 inches thick.
Due to a gas line and concrete flatwork, we were unable to expose the footings at the restaurant building.
Our boring B-1 found old fill and roots to 5 feet. This does not mean that old fill and roots are everywhere, but it gives a possible idea of the conditions adjacent to the existing structure. A detailed description of the existing footing conditions found in our hand dug test pits by the Groezinger Winery building is given on Plate 8, Appendix A.
Corrosion Potential
Mapping by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (2023) indicates that the corrosion potential of the near surface soil is moderate for uncoated steel and moderate for concrete. Performing corrosivity tests to verify these values was not part of our requested and/or proposed scope of work. Should the need arise, we would be pleased to provide a proposal to evaluate these characteristics.
RGH
CONSULTANTS
Geotechnical Study Report Groezinger Winery Building Improvements and Restaurant Addition
December 22, 2023 Project Number: 7767.01.04.2
Groundwater
Free groundwater was first detected in our borings at depths ranging from 9 to 14 feet below the ground surface at the time of drilling. When the holes were backfilled after drilling was completed, the water level in boring B-5 had risen from a depth of about 14 feet to a depth of about 10 feet. Fluctuation in the groundwater level typically occurs because of a variation in rainfall intensity, duration, and other factors such as flooding and periodic irrigation.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Seismic Hazards
Faulting and Seismicity
We did not observe landforms within the area that would indicate the presence of active faults and the site is not within a current Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007). Therefore, we believe the risk of fault rupture at the site is low. However, the site is within an area affected by strong seismic activity and future seismic shaking should be anticipated at the site. It will be necessary to design and construct the proposed improvements in strict adherence with current standards for earthquakeresistant construction.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a rapid loss of shear strength experienced in saturated, predominantly granular soil below the groundwater level during strong earthquake ground shaking due to an increase in pore water pressure. The occurrence of this phenomenon is dependent on many complex factors including the intensity and duration of ground shaking, particle size distribution and density of the soil.
Granular soil was encountered at the site below the groundwater table. Therefore, we performed an analysis of the blow count data from our borings using the methods of Seed and Idriss (1982), Seed and others (1985), Youd and Idriss (2001), Idriss and Boulanger (2004) and Idriss and Boulanger (2008). These procedures normalize the blow counts to account for overburden pressure, rod length, hammer energy, and fines (percent of silt and clay) content. Once the blow counts are normalized and adjusted to a clean sand blow count, the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR) for each blow count is then determined using the same procedures referenced above. The CRR is compared to the cyclic stress ratio (CSR) induced by the earthquake. Calculating the CSR requires a peak ground acceleration and design earthquake magnitude.
Peak ground acceleration (PGA) was determined using the methods in the 2022 California Building Code (CBC) and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Standard 7-16, titled “Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures” (2017). Using the site-specific seismic criteria developed in accordance with Chapter 21 of ASCE 7-16, the site’s latitude and longitude of 38.4023°N and 122.3628°W, respectively, and a site soil Class of D, the PGA for the site is 0.777g. Using this information, the CSR for a MM 7.5 earthquake at the site ranges from 0.48 to 0.60. The West Napa fault is most likely controlling the ground motions at the site. According to the Building Seismic Safety Council Earthquake RGH
CONSULTANTS
Geotechnical Study Report Groezinger Winery Building Improvements and Restaurant Addition
December 22, 2023 Project Number: 7767.01.04.2
Scenario Event Set (BSSC, 2014) and the USGS Earthquake Scenario Map (available at http://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=14d2f75c7c4f4619936dac0d14e1e468 ), the West Napa fault is capable of a MM 6.97 earthquake. Therefore, the CRR values at the site must be scaled to account for the difference between MM 6.97 and MM 7.5. When the scaling factor for magnitude and confining stress corrections presented in Idriss and Boulanger (2004) are applied, the CRR values at the site do not exceed the CSR values from 14 to 15½ feet in boring B-5. Therefore, we judge that there is potential for liquefaction at the site.
There are three potential consequences of liquefaction: bearing capacity failure, lateral spreading toward a free face (e.g. riverbank) and settlement. Bearing capacity failure is sudden and extreme settlement of foundations that typically occurs when the liquefied layer is relatively close (typically within two times the footing width, depending on the loads) to the bottom of the foundation. Because the liquefiable layer is 14 feet below the ground surface, we judge that the potential for bearing capacity failure is low.
Lateral spreading can occur where continuous layers of liquefiable soil extend to a free face, such as a creek bank. There are no significant free faces in the vicinity of the site. Therefore, we judge the potential for liquefaction-induced lateral spreading at the site is low.
The third potential consequence of liquefaction is settlement due to densification of the liquefied soil.
Potential settlement based on the blow count data and cyclic stress ratio were calculated using the methods of Ishihara and Yoshimine (1992). For the layers encountered at 14 feet below the surface, we calculated total settlement of about ½-inch. Differential settlement could be about ½-inch.
Geotechnical Issues
General
Based on our study, we judge the proposed improvements can be built as planned, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into their design and construction. The primary geotechnical concerns during design and construction of the project are:
1. The presence of about 5 feet of heterogeneous fill in the restaurant addition building area;
2. The potential for weak and porous surface soil in the train station area;
3. The detrimental effects of uncontrolled surface runoff on the long-term satisfactory performance of improvements; and
4. The strong ground shaking predicted to impact the site during the life of the project.
Heterogeneous Fill
Heterogeneous fills of unknown quality and unknown method of placement, such as those found at the restaurant addition site, can settle and/or heave erratically under the load of new fills, structures, and slabs. Footings and slabs supported on heterogeneous fill could also crack as a result of such erratic movements. Thus, where not removed by planned grading, the heterogeneous fill must be excavated and replaced as an engineered fill if it is to be used for structural support.
RGH
CONSULTANTS
Geotechnical Study Report Groezinger Winery Building Improvements and Restaurant Addition
December 22, 2023 Project Number: 7767.01.04.2
Weak, Porous Surface Soil
Weak, porous surface soil, such as that found at the site, appears hard and strong when dry but will lose strength rapidly and settle under the load of fills, foundations, and slabs as its moisture content increases and approaches saturation. The moisture content of this soil can increase as the result of rainfall, periodic irrigation or when the natural upward migration of water vapor through the soil is impeded by, and condenses under fills, foundations, and slabs. The detrimental effects of such movements can be reduced by strengthening the soil during grading. This can be achieved by excavating the weak soil and replacing it as properly compacted (engineered) fill. Alternatively, satisfactory foundation support could be obtained below the weak surface soil.
Foundation and Slab Support - After remedial grading, satisfactory foundation support for the restaurant addition and train station can be obtained from spread footings bottomed on the engineered fill.
Satisfactory support for the new footings for the Groezinger Winery building improvements can be obtained from firm native soils. Where new footings are immediately adjacent to existing foundations, they need to match the depth of the existing footings. If remedial grading is not performed for the restaurant addition, the footings need to gain support in firm, native soil encountered below the heterogenous fill and the floors need to be structurally supported. Where new restaurant footings are immediately adjacent to existing footings, they need to match the depth of the existing footings. Provided remedial grading is performed as recommended herein, interior slab-on-grade floors for the restaurant addition, if used, and the train station and exterior slabs can also be satisfactorily supported on engineered fill.
On-Site Soil Quality
All fill materials used in the building area must be engineered, as subsequently described in “Recommendations.” We anticipate that, with the exception of organic matter and of rocks or lumps larger than 6 inches in diameter, the excavated material will be suitable for re-use as general fill and engineered fill within building and exterior slab areas.
Engineered Fill
The engineered fill can consist of approved on-site soil or import materials with a low expansion potential.
The geotechnical engineer must approve the use of on-site soil as engineered fill during grading.
Settlement
If remedial grading is performed and/or the spread footings are installed in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report, we estimate that post-construction differential settlement across the train station and the addition will be about ½-inch. Earthquake-induced differential settlement could be up to ½-inch.
RGH
CONSULTANTS
Geotechnical Study Report Groezinger Winery Building Improvements and Restaurant Addition
December 22, 2023 Project Number: 7767.01.04.2
Surface Drainage
The site will be impacted by surface runoff. Surface runoff typically sheet flows over the ground surface but can be concentrated by the planned site grading, landscaping, and drainage. Surface runoff can pond against structures and seep into the slab rock or crawl space. Therefore, strict control of surface runoff is necessary to provide long-term satisfactory performance of improvements. It will be necessary to divert surface runoff around improvements, provide positive drainage away from structures, and install energy dissipaters at discharge points of concentrated runoff. This can be achieved by conveying the runoff into man made drainage elements or natural swales that lead downgradient of the site.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Seismic Design
Seismic design parameters presented below are based on Section 1613 titled “Earthquake Loads” of the 2022 California Building Code (CBC). Based on Table 20.3-1 of American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Standard 7-16, titled “Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures” (2017), we have determined a Site Class of D should be used for the site. Using a site latitude and longitude of 38.4023°N and 122.3628°W, respectively, and the procedures outlined in Chapter 21 of ASCE Standard 7-16, we recommend that the following site-specific seismic design criteria be used for applicable structures at the site.
2022 CBC Seismic Criteria
Spectral Response Parameter Acceleration (g)
SS (0.2 second period) 1.866
S1 (1 second period) 0.670
SMS (0.2 second period) 1.770
SM1 (1 second period) 1.479
SDS (0.2 second period) 1.180
SD1 (1 second period) 0.986
Grading
Site Preparation
Areas to be developed should be cleared of vegetation and debris including that left by the removal of obsolete structures. Trees and shrubs that will not be part of the proposed development should be removed and their primary root systems grubbed. Cleared and grubbed material should be removed from the site and disposed of in accordance with County Health Department guidelines. We did not observe septic tanks, leach lines or underground fuel tanks during our study. Any such appurtenances found during RGH
CONSULTANTS
Geotechnical Study Report Groezinger Winery Building Improvements and Restaurant Addition
December 22, 2023 Project Number: 7767.01.04.2
grading should be capped and sealed and/or excavated and removed from the site, respectively, in accordance with established guidelines and requirements of the County Health Department. Voids created during clearing should be backfilled with engineered fill as recommended herein.
Stripping
Areas to be graded should be stripped of the upper few inches of soil containing organic matter. Soil containing more than two percent by weight of organic matter should be considered organic. Actual stripping depth should be determined by a representative of the geotechnical engineer in the field at the time of stripping. The strippings should be removed from the site, or if suitable, stockpiled for re-use as topsoil in landscaping.
Excavations
Following initial site preparation, excavation should be performed as recommended herein. Excavations extending below the proposed finished grade should be backfilled with suitable materials compacted to the requirements given below.
Within the restaurant addition and train station building areas, where spread footings bottomed at minimum depth are chosen for foundation support, and within fill and interior slab-on-grade areas, the old fill should be removed in its entirety and weak, porous, compressible surface soil should be excavated to a minimum depth of 30 inches below existing grade. Additional excavation should be performed, as necessary, to allow space for the installation of a blanket of engineered fill, at least 30 inches thick, beneath the building pad subgrade. This grading is not required at the addition if deep spread footings and structurally supported floors are used. The excavation of weak, compressible, soil should also extend at least 12 inches below exterior slabs.
The excavation of weak, porous, compressible, surface materials should extend at least 5 feet beyond the outside edge of the exterior footings of the proposed improvements and 3 feet beyond the edge of exterior slabs. The excavated materials should be stockpiled for later use as compacted fill, or removed from the site, as applicable.
At all times, temporary construction excavations should conform to the regulations of the State of California, Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Industrial Safety or other stricter governing regulations. The stability of temporary cut slopes, such as those constructed during the installation of underground utilities, should be the responsibility of the contractor. Depending on the time of year when grading is performed, and the surface conditions exposed, temporary cut slopes may need to be excavated to 1½:1, or flatter. The tops of the temporary cut slopes should be rounded back to 2:1 in weak soil zones.
Fill Quality
All fill materials should be free of perishable matter and rocks or lumps over 6 inches in diameter and must be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to use. We judge the on-site soil is generally suitable for use as general fill and engineered fill within building and exterior slab areas. The suitability of the onsite soil for use as engineered fill should be verified during grading.
RGH
CONSULTANTS
Geotechnical Study Report Groezinger Winery Building Improvements and Restaurant Addition
December 22, 2023 Project Number: 7767.01.04.2
Import Fill
Import fill, if needed, should be select fill. Select fill should be free of organic matter, have a low expansion potential, and conform in general to the following requirements:
SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING (by dry weight)
6 inch 100
4 inch 90 – 100
No. 200 10 – 60
Liquid Limit – 40 Percent Maximum
Plasticity Index – 15 Percent Maximum
Material not conforming to these requirements may be suitable for use as import fill; however, it shall be the contractor’s responsibility to demonstrate that the proposed material will perform in an equivalent manner. The geotechnical engineer should approve imported materials prior to use as compacted fill. The grading contractor is responsible for submitting, at least 72 hours (3 days) in advance of its intended use, samples of the proposed import materials for laboratory testing and approval by the soils engineer.
Fill Placement
The surface exposed by stripping and removal of old fill and weak, compressible, surface soil should be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches, uniformly moisture-conditioned to near optimum and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density of the materials as determined by ASTM Test Method D-1557. Approved fill material should then be spread in thin lifts, uniformly moisture-conditioned to near optimum and properly compacted. All structural fills, including those placed to establish site surface drainage, should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction.
RGH
CONSULTANTS
Geotechnical Study Report Groezinger Winery Building Improvements and Restaurant Addition
December 22, 2023 Project Number: 7767.01.04.2
SUMMARY OF COMPACTION RECOMMENDATIONS
Area Compaction Recommendation (ASTM D-1557)
Preparation for areas to receive fill After preparation in accordance with this report, compact upper 6 inches to a minimum of 90 percent
relative compaction.
General fill (native or import) Compact to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction.
Structural fill beneath buildings,
extending outward to 5' beyond
building perimeter
Compact to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction.
Trenches Compact to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction.
Compact the top 6 inches below vehicle pavement
subgrade to a minimum of 95 percent relative
compaction.
Concrete flatwork and exterior slabs,
extending outward to 3' beyond edge
of slab
Compact subgrade to a minimum of 90 percent relative
compaction. Where subject to vehicle traffic, compact
upper 6 inches of subgrade to at least 95 percent relative compaction.
Aggregate Base Compact aggregate base to at least 95 percent relative compaction.
Wet Weather Grading
Generally, grading is performed more economically during the summer months when the on-site soil is usually dry of optimum moisture content. Delays should be anticipated in site grading performed during the rainy season or early spring due to excessive moisture in on-site soil. Special and relatively expensive construction procedures, including dewatering of excavations and importing granular soil, should be anticipated if grading must be completed during the winter and early spring or if localized areas of soft saturated soil are found during grading in the summer and fall.
Open excavations also tend to be more unstable during wet weather as groundwater seeps towards the exposed cut slope. Severe sloughing and occasional slope failures should be anticipated. The occurrence of these events will require extensive clean up and the installation of slope protection measures, thus delaying projects. The general contractor is responsible for the performance, maintenance and repair of temporary cut slopes.
RGH
CONSULTANTS
Geotechnical Study Report Groezinger Winery Building Improvements and Restaurant Addition
December 22, 2023 Project Number: 7767.01.04.2
Foundation Support
The proposed improvements can be supported on continuous and isolated spread footings that bottom on firm soil (Groezinger Winery building and restaurant addition if remedial grading is not performed) or compacted engineered fill (Train station and restaurant addition if remedial grading is performed).
Groezinger Winery Building - Spread Footings
If the planned spread footings are adjacent to an existing footing, the new footing needs to match the depth of the existing footing. If the planned spread footings are entirely new, spread footings should be at least 12 inches wide and should bottom on firm soil at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade.
Additional embedment or width may be needed to satisfy code and/or structural requirements.
Restaurant Addition - Spread Footings
Option 1: If the planned spread footings are adjacent to an existing footing, the new footing needs to match the depth of the existing footing. Provided remedial grading of the old fill and weak soil is performed as recommended herein, new footings not immediately adjacent to existing footings should be at least 12 inches wide and should bottom on compacted engineered fill at least 12 inches below pad subgrade. Additional embedment or width may be needed to satisfy code and/or structural requirements.
Option 2: If the planned spread footings are adjacent to an existing footing, the new footing needs to match the depth of the existing footing. Where remedial grading is not performed, new footings not immediately adjacent to existing footings should be at least 12 inches wide and should bottom on firm, native soils, as applicable, at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade. Additional embedment or width may be needed to satisfy code and/or structural requirements. Please note that the old fill in our boring extended to a depth of 5 feet.
Train Station - Spread Footings
Grading will be performed to mitigate the weak surface soils. Spread footings should be at least 12 inches wide and should bottom on compacted engineered fill at least 12 inches below pad subgrade. Additional embedment or width may be needed to satisfy code and/or structural requirements.
Bearing Pressures - Footings installed in accordance with these recommendations may be designed using allowable bearing pressures of 2,000, 3,000, and 4,000 pounds per square foot (psf), for dead loads, dead plus code live loads, and total loads (including wind and seismic), respectively.
Lateral Pressures - The portion of spread footing foundations extending into new compacted engineered fill (Train Station and Restaurant Addition, if grading is performed) may impose a passive equivalent fluid pressure and a friction factor of 350 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and 0.35, respectively, to resist sliding.
The portion of spread footing foundations extending into native soils (Groezinger building and restaurant addition, if grading is not performed) may impose passive equivalent fluid pressures and a friction factor of 150 pcf from 1 to 3 feet and 300 pcf below 3 feet; and 0.35, respectively, to resist sliding. Passive pressure should be neglected within the upper 6 inches, unless the soil is confined by concrete slabs or pavements.
RGH
CONSULTANTS
Geotechnical Study Report Groezinger Winery Building Improvements and Restaurant Addition
December 22, 2023 Project Number: 7767.01.04.2
Footing Excavations
The bottoms of all footing excavations should be thoroughly cleaned out or wetted and compacted using hand-operated tamping equipment prior to placing steel and concrete. This will remove the soil disturbed during footing excavations, or restore their adequate bearing capacity, and reduce post-construction settlement. Footing excavations should not be allowed to dry before placing concrete. If shrinkage cracks appear in soil exposed in the footing excavations, the soil should be thoroughly moistened to close all cracks prior to concrete placement. The moisture condition of the foundation excavations should be checked by the geotechnical engineer no more than 24 hours prior to placing concrete.
Slab-On-Grade
Provided grading is performed in accordance with the recommendations presented herein, interior exterior slabs should be underlain by engineered fill. Slab-on-grade subgrade should be rolled to produce a dense, uniform surface. The slabs should be underlain with a capillary moisture break consisting of at least 4 inches of clean, free-draining crushed rock or gravel (excluding pea gravel) at least ¼-inch and no larger than ¾-inch in size. Interior slabs subject to vehicular traffic may be underlain by Class 2 aggregate base. The use of Class 2 aggregate base should be reviewed on a case by case basis. Class 2 aggregate base can be used for slab rock under exterior slabs. Interior area slabs should be provided with an underdrain system. The installation of this subdrain system is discussed in the “Geotechnical Drainage” section.
Slabs should be designed by the project civil or structural engineer to support the anticipated loads, reduce cracking and provide protection against the infiltration of moisture vapor. A vapor barrier should be incorporated into the floor slab design in all areas where moisture-sensitive floor coverings, coatings, underlayments, adhesives, moisture sensitive goods, humidity-controlled environments, or climatecooled environments are anticipated initially, or in the future. Vapor barrier should consist of a minimum 15 mil extruded polyolefin plastic (no recycled content or woven materials permitted); permeance as tested before and after mandatory conditioning (ASTM E1745 Section 7.1 and Sub-paragraphs 7.1.1 –
7.1.5): less than 0.1 perms [grains/(ft2 per hour in Hg)] and comply with the ASTM E1745 class a requirements. The vapor barrier should also meet paragraph’s 8.1 and 9.3 of ASTM E1745; subsequent documentation should be provided by the vapor barrier manufacturer. Install vapor barrier in accordance with ASTM E1643, including proper perimeter seal.
Utility Trenches
The shoring and safety of trench excavations is solely the responsibility of the contractor. Attention is drawn to the State of California Safety Orders dealing with “Excavations and Trenches.” Unless otherwise specified by the Town of Yountville, on-site, inorganic soil may be used as general utility trench backfill. Where utility trenches support pavements, slabs and foundations, trench backfill should consist of aggregate baserock. The baserock should comply with the minimum requirements in Caltrans Standard Specifications, Section 26 for Class 2 Aggregate Base. Trench backfill should be moistureconditioned as necessary, and placed in horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in thickness, before compaction. Each layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction as determined by RGH
CONSULTANTS
Geotechnical Study Report Groezinger Winery Building Improvements and Restaurant Addition
December 22, 2023 Project Number: 7767.01.04.2
ASTM Test Method D-1557. The top 6 inches of trench backfill below vehicle pavement subgrades should be moisture-conditioned as necessary and compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Jetting or ponding of trench backfill to aid in achieving the recommended degree of compaction should not be attempted.
Geotechnical Drainage
Surface water should be diverted away from foundations. Surface drainage gradients should slope away from building foundations in accordance with the requirements of the CBC or local governing agency.
Where a gradient flatter than 2 percent for paved areas and 4 percent for unpaved areas is required to satisfy design constraints, area drains should be installed with a spacing no greater than about 20 feet.
Roofs should be provided with gutters and the downspouts should be connected to closed (glued Schedule 40 PVC or ABS with SDR of 35 or better) conduits discharging well away from foundations, onto paved areas or into the site’s surface drainage system. Roof downspouts and surface drains must be maintained entirely separate from the slab underdrains recommended hereinafter.
Water seepage or the spread of extensive root systems into the soil subgrade of footings, slabs or pavements could cause differential movements and consequent distress in these structural elements.
Landscaping should be planned with consideration for these potential problems.
Slab Underdrains
Where interior slab subgrades are less than 6 inches above adjacent exterior grade and where migration of moisture through the slab would be detrimental, slab underdrains should be installed to dispose of surface and/or groundwater that may seep and collect in the slab rock. Slab underdrains should consist of 6-inch-wide trenches that extend at least 6 inches below the bottom of the slab rock and slope to drain by gravity. The slab underdrain trenches should be spaced no further than 15 feet, both ways. Additional drain trenches should be installed, as necessary, to drain all isolated under slab areas. Four-inch diameter perforated pipe (SDR 35 or better) sloped to drain to outlets by gravity should be placed in the bottom of the trenches. Slab underdrain trenches should be backfilled to subgrade level with clean, free draining slab rock. An illustration of this system is shown on Plate 15. If slab underdrains are not used, it should be anticipated that water will enter the slab rock, permeate through the concrete slab and ruin floor coverings.
Maintenance
Periodic land maintenance will be required. Surface and subsurface drainage facilities should be checked frequently and cleaned and maintained as necessary or at least annually. A dense growth of deep-rooted ground cover must be maintained on all slopes to reduce sloughing and erosion. Sloughing and erosion that occurs must be repaired promptly before it can enlarge.
RGH
CONSULTANTS
Geotechnical Study Report Groezinger Winery Building Improvements and Restaurant Addition
December 22, 2023 Project Number: 7767.01.04.2
Supplemental Services
Pre-Bid Meeting
It has been our experience that contractors bidding on the project often contact us to discuss the geotechnical aspects. Informal contacts between RGH Consultants (RGH) and an individual contractor could result in incomplete or misinterpreted information being provided to the contractor. Therefore, we recommend a pre-bid meeting be held to answer any questions about the report prior to submittal of bids. If this is not possible, questions or clarifications regarding this report should be directed to the project owner or their designated representative. After consultation with RGH, the project owner or their representative should provide clarifications or additional information to all contractors bidding the job.
Plan and Specifications Review
Coordination between the design team and the geotechnical engineer is recommended to assure that the design is compatible with the soil, geologic and groundwater conditions encountered during our study.
RGH recommends that we be retained to review the project plans and specifications to determine if they are consistent with our recommendations. In the event we are not retained to perform this recommended review, we will assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations.
Construction Observation and Testing
Prior to construction, a meeting should be held at the site that includes, but is not limited to, the owner or owner’s representative, the general contractor, the grading contractor, the foundation contractor, the underground contractor, any specialty contractors, the project civil engineer, other members of the project design team and RGH. This meeting should serve as a time to discuss and answer questions regarding the recommendations presented herein and to establish the coordination procedure between the contractors and RGH.
In addition, we should be retained to monitor all soil related work during construction, including, but not limited to:
• Site stripping, over-excavation, grading, and compaction of near surface soil; • Placement of all engineered fill and trench backfill with verification field and laboratory testing;
• Observation of all foundation excavations; and
• Observation of foundation and subdrain installations.
If, during construction, we observe subsurface conditions different from those encountered during the explorations, we should be allowed to amend our recommendations accordingly. If different conditions are observed by others, or appear to be present beneath excavations, RGH should be advised at once so that these conditions may be evaluated and our recommendations reviewed and updated, if warranted.
The validity of recommendations made in this report is contingent upon our being notified and retained to review the changed conditions.
RGH
CONSULTANTS
Geotechnical Study Report Groezinger Winery Building Improvements and Restaurant Addition
December 22, 2023 Project Number: 7767.01.04.2
If more than 18 months have elapsed between the submission of this report and the start of work at the site, or if conditions have changed because of natural causes or construction operations at, or adjacent to, the site, the recommendations made in this report may no longer be valid or appropriate. In such case, we recommend that we be retained to review this report and verify the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations or modify the same considering the time lapsed or changed conditions. The validity of recommendations made in this report is contingent upon such review.
These supplemental services are performed on an as-requested basis and are in addition to this geotechnical study. We cannot accept responsibility for items that we are not notified to observe or for changed conditions we are not allowed to review.
LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared by RGH for the exclusive use of the Boardwalk Investment Group and their consultants as an aid in the design and construction of the proposed improvements described in this report.
The validity of the recommendations contained in this report depends upon an adequate testing and monitoring program during the construction phase. Unless the construction monitoring and testing program is provided by our firm, we will not be held responsible for compliance with design recommendations presented in this report and other addendum submitted as part of this report.
Our services consist of professional opinions and conclusions developed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. We provide no warranty, either expressed or implied. Our conclusions and recommendations are based on the information provided to us regarding the proposed construction, the results of our field exploration, laboratory testing program, and professional judgment. Verification of our conclusions and recommendations is subject to our review of the project plans and specifications, and our observation of construction.
The borings and test pits represent the subsurface conditions at the locations and on the date indicated.
It is not warranted that they are representative of such conditions elsewhere or at other times. Site conditions and cultural features described in the text of this report are those existing at the time of our field exploration and may not necessarily be the same or comparable at other times.
The scope of our services did not include an environmental assessment or a study of the presence or absence of toxic mold and/or hazardous, toxic or corrosive materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air (on, below or around this site), nor did it include an evaluation or study for the presence or absence of wetlands. These studies should be conducted under separate cover, scope and fee and should be provided by a qualified expert in those fields.
RGH
CONSULTANTS
Geotechnical Study Report Groezinger Winery Building Improvements and Restaurant Addition
December 22, 2023 Project Number: 7767.01.04.2
Page A-1
APPENDIX A - PLATES
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 1 Site Location Map
Plate 2 Exploration Plan
Plates 3 through 7 Logs of Borings B-1 through B-5
Plate 8 Logs of Hand Dug Test Pits HTP-1 through HTP-3
Plate 9 Soil Classification Chart and Key to Test Data
Plate 10 Classification Test Data
Plate 11 through 14 Strength Test Data
Plate 15 Typical Subdrain Details Illustration
Reference: Mapline Scale: 1" = 2000'
Site
SITE LOCATION MAP PLATE
Job No: 7767.01.04.2
Groezinger Winery Improvements & Restaurant
6539 Washington Street
Yountville, California
Date: DEC 2023
PLATE
Job No: 7767.01.04.2
Groezinger Winery Improvements & Restaurant
6539 Washington Street
Yountville, California
Date: DEC 2023
EXPLORATION PLAN
2 Reference: Existing Site Plan Scale: 1" = 60'
B-3
HTP-2
Hand Dug Test Pit Location
and Number
Boring Location and Number
EXPLANATION
B-1
B-2
B-3 B-4
B-5
60 0 60 feet
HTP-3
HTP-1
HTP-2
LOG OF BORING B-1
3 Date
Drilled 11/6/2023
Drilling
Method Solid-Stem Auger
Drill Rig
Type Portable Drill Rig
Groundwater Level No Groundwater
Encountered
Logged By AKU
Drill Bit
Size/Type 4 inch
Drilling
Contractor Benevent
Sampling
Method(s) Modified California
Project Manager EGC
Total Depth
of Borehole 15 feet
Approximate
Surface Elevation Existing Ground Surface
Hammer
Data 140 lb., 30" drop
56.0 27.0 15
42.9 95.8 19.4 Su = 2,265 psf
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL), medium stiff to very stiff,
moist, concrete debris at 1 foot, trace gravel up to 4
inches in diameter, roots from 3 to 4-1/2 feet (Old Fill)
LIGHT BROWN SANDY CLAY WITH GRAVEL (CL),
very stiff, rootlets to 6-1/2 feet
LIGHT BROWN CLAYEY SAND (SC), medium dense,
moist
LIGHT BROWN CLAY WITH SAND (CL), hard, moist
Boring terminated at 15 feet
No groundwater encountered
7.8 0
5 10
15 29
19 26
33/6"
PLATE
Job No: 7767.01.04.2
Groezinger Winery Improvements & Restaurant
6539 Washington Street
Yountville, California
Date: DEC 2023
LOG OF BORING B-2
4 Date
Drilled 11/6/2023
Drilling
Method Solid-Stem Auger
Drill Rig
Type Portable Drill Rig
Groundwater Level 9 feet
Logged By AKU
Drill Bit
Size/Type 4 inch
Drilling
Contractor Benevent
Sampling
Method(s) Modified California, SPT
Project Manager EGC
Total Depth
of Borehole 10 1/2 feet
Approximate
Surface Elevation Existing Ground Surface
Hammer
Data 140 lb., 30" drop
40.8 26.8 15
Su = 2,439 psf
Su = 767 psf
109.4
105.1
17.6 20.2
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
3" ASPHALT OVER 10" AGGREGATE BASE
DARK BROWN CLAYEY SAND (SC), medium dense,
moist
DARK BROWN CLAY WITH SAND (CL), stiff, moist
BROWN CLAY (CL), hard, moist, rootlets from 5 to
6-1/2 feet
GRAY BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL), hard, wet
Boring terminated at 10 1/2 feet
Groundwater encountered at 9 feet
9.4 0
5 10
15 17
10 33/4"
34 PLATE
Job No: 7767.01.04.2
Groezinger Winery Improvements & Restaurant
6539 Washington Street
Yountville, California
Date: DEC 2023
LOG OF BORING B-3
5 Date
Drilled 11/6/2023
Drilling
Method Solid-Stem Auger
Drill Rig
Type Portable Drill Rig
Groundwater Level No Groundwater
Encountered
Logged By AKU
Drill Bit
Size/Type 4 inch
Drilling
Contractor Benevent
Sampling
Method(s) Modified California, SPT
Project Manager EGC
Total Depth
of Borehole 10 1/2 feet
Approximate
Surface Elevation Existing Ground Surface
Hammer
Data 140 lb., 30" drop
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
DARK BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL), stiff, moist, rootlets
GRAY SAND WITH CLAY AND GRAVEL (SP-SC),
dense to very dense, moist
GRAY BROWN CLAYEY SAND (SC), dense, moist
Boring terminated at 10 1/2 feet
No groundwater encountered
0 5
10 15
9 33/6"
84 46
PLATE
Job No: 7767.01.04.2
Groezinger Winery Improvements & Restaurant
6539 Washington Street
Yountville, California
Date: DEC 2023
LOG OF BORING B-4
6 Date
Drilled 11/6/2023
Drilling
Method Solid-Stem Auger
Drill Rig
Type Portable Drill Rig
Groundwater Level No Groundwater
Encountered
Logged By AKU
Drill Bit
Size/Type 4 inch
Drilling
Contractor Benevent
Sampling
Method(s) Modified California, SPT
Project Manager EGC
Total Depth
of Borehole 10 1/2 feet
Approximate
Surface Elevation Existing Ground Surface
Hammer
Data 140 lb., 30" drop
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
GRAY BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL), stiff to very stiff,
moist
GRAY BROWN SAND WITH CLAY AND GRAVEL
(SP-SC), very dense, moist
Boring terminated at 10 1/2 feet
No groundwater encountered
0 5
10 15
33/4"
30/4"
50 PLATE
Job No: 7767.01.04.2
Groezinger Winery Improvements & Restaurant
6539 Washington Street
Yountville, California
Date: DEC 2023
LOG OF BORING B-5
7 Date
Drilled 11/6/2023
Drilling
Method Solid-Stem Auger
Drill Rig
Type Portable Drill Rig
Groundwater Level No Groundwater
Encountered
Logged By AKU
Drill Bit
Size/Type 4 inch
Drilling
Contractor Benevent
Sampling•
Method(s) Modified California, SPT
Project Manager EGC
Total Depth
of Borehole 17 feet
Approximate
Surface Elevation Existing Ground Surface
Hammer
Data 140 lb., 30" drop
63.1 30.0 18
59.1 19.8
23.1 102.6 18.5 Su = 1,606.5 psf
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
DARK BROWN SANDY CLAY WITH GRAVEL (CL),
stiff, moist, roots in upper 2 feet
BROWN SANDY CLAY (CL), stiff, moist
BROWN CLAYEY SAND (SC), dense, moist to wet
BROWN CLAYEY SAND (SC), medium dense, wet
BROWN CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SC),
medium dense, wet
Boring terminated at 17 feet
Groundwater first encountered at 14 feet and stabilized at 10 feet
9.1 0
5 10
15 11
13 30/5"
11 21
PLATE
Job No: 7767.01.04.2
Groezinger Winery Improvements & Restaurant
6539 Washington Street
Yountville, California
Date: DEC 2023
Footing
Stemwall
Ground Surface
Dark Brown
Sandy Clay
with Gravel (CL)
Dark Brown
Sandy Clay (CL)
LOGS OF HTP-1 THROUGH HTP 3
8 HTP-1
36 24
12 Inches
48 0
0 Inches 12 24
2" White PVC Pipe
2" White PVC Pipe
2" White PVC Pipe
Ground Surface
24 12
Inches
0 HTP-2
0 Inches 12 24 36
HTP-3
Footing
Brick Stemwall
Ground Surface
36 24
12 Inches
48 0
0 Inches 12 24
Scale: 1" = 1'
Gray Brown
Sandy Clay (CL)
PLATE
Job No: 7767.01.04.2
Groezinger Winery Improvements & Restaurant
6539 Washington Street
Yountville, California
Date: DEC 2023
SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND KEY TO TEST DATA
9 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS
1 Depth (feet): Depth in feet below the ground surface. 2 Sample Type: Type of soil sample collected at the depth interval shown.
3 Sampling Resistance, blows/ft: Number of blows to advance driven sampler one foot (or distance shown) beyond seating interval using the hammer identified on the boring log.
4 Graphic Log: Graphic depiction of the subsurface material encountered.
5 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION: Description of material encountered.
May include consistency, moisture, color, and •other descriptive text.
6 Dry Density (pcf): Dry density, in pcf.
7 Water Content (%): Water content, percent.
8 % <#200 Sieve: % <#200 Sieve
9 PI, %: Plasticity Index, expressed as a water content. 10 LL, %: Liquid Limit, expressed as a water content.
11 Expansion Index (EI): Expansion Index (EI)
12 UC, ksf: Unconfined compressive strength, in kips per square foot. 13 REMARKS AND OTHER TESTS: Comments and observations
regarding drilling or sampling made by driller or field personnel. Su, psf: Undrained Shear Strength, in pounds per square foot (psf)
FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST ABBREVIATIONS
LL: Liquid Limit, percent
PI: Plasticity Index, percent
SA: Sieve analysis (percent passing No. 200 Sieve)
Su: Undrained Shear Strength, in pounds per square foot (psf)
MATERIAL GRAPHIC SYMBOLS
Asphaltic Concrete (AC)
Lean CLAY, CLAY w/SAND, SANDY CLAY (CL)
Clayey SAND (SC)
Poorly graded SAND with Clay (SP-SC)
TYPICAL SAMPLER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS
2.5-inch-ID Modified
California w/ brass liners
2-inch-OD unlined split
spoon (SPT)
OTHER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS
Water level (at time of drilling, ATD)
Water level (after waiting, AW)
Minor change in material properties within a
stratum
Inferred/gradational contact between strata
? Queried contact between strata
GENERAL NOTES
1: Soil classifications are based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive, and actual lithologic changes may be gradual. Field descriptions may have been modified to reflect results of lab tests. 2: Descriptions on these logs apply only at the specific boring locations and at the time the borings were advanced. They are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times.
PLATE
Job No: 7767.01.04.2
Groezinger Winery Improvements & Restaurant
6539 Washington Street
Yountville, California
Date: DEC 2023
CLASSIFICATION TEST DATA
10 Tested By: SCW Checked By: SEF
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 LIQUID LIMIT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
CL-ML ML or OL MH or OH
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
4 7 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI %<#40 %<#200 USCS
Project No. Remarks:
Project:
Figure
Source of Sample: B-1 Depth: 3.0', 3.5', & 4.0'
Source of Sample: B-2 Depth: 1.5' & 2.0'
Source of Sample: B-5 Depth: 2.5' & 3.0'
Brown Sandy Clay (CL) 27.0 19.2 7.8 56.0 CL
Dark Brown Clayey Sand (SC) 26.8 17.4 9.4 40.8 SC
Dark Brown Sandy Clay (CL) 30.0 20.9 9.1 63.1 CL
7767.01.04.2
Expansion Index= 22 (Low)
Expansion Index= 15 (Very Low)
Expansion Index= 18 (Very Low)
Groezinger Winery Improvements & Restaurant
PLATE
Job No: 7767.01.04.2
Groezinger Winery Improvements & Restaurant
6539 Washington Street
Yountville, California
Date: DEC 2023
STRENGTH TEST DATA
11 Tested By: SAA Checked By: SEF
Project: Groezinger Winery Improvements & Restaurant
Source of Sample: B-1 Depth: 5.5'
Proj. No.: 7767.01.04.2 Date Sampled: 11/6/23
Type of Test:
Unconsolidated Undrained
Sample Type: California Modified Tube
Description: Light Brown Sandy Clay with
Gravel (CL)
Assumed Specific Gravity= 2.70
Remarks:
Figure
Sample No.
Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in.
Height, in.
Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in.
Height, in.
Strain, %
Strain, %
Strain rate, in./min.
Back Pressure, psi
Cell Pressure, psi
Fail. Stress, psf
Ult. Stress, psf 1 Failure, psf 3 Failure, psf
1 19.4
95.8 69.1
0.7593
2.37 5.80
19.4 95.8
69.1 0.7593
2.37 5.80
0.060
4.1 0.00
5.00 4530
4530
4.1 720
5250
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Axial Strain, %
0 1.5 3 4.5 6
1 0
900
1800
2700
Normal Stress, psf
0 900 1800 2700 3600 4500 5400
C, psf
, deg
Tan( )
Results
PLATE
Job No: 7767.01.04.2
Groezinger Winery Improvements & Restaurant
6539 Washington Street
Yountville, California
Date: DEC 2023
STRENGTH TEST DATA
12 Tested By: SAA Checked By: SEF
Project: Groezinger Winery Improvements & Restaurant
Source of Sample: B-2 Depth: 2.0'
Proj. No.: 7767.01.04.2 Date Sampled: 11/6/23
Type of Test:
Unconsolidated Undrained
Sample Type: California Modified Tube
Description: Dark Brown Clayey Sand (SC)
Assumed Specific Gravity= 2.70
Remarks:
Figure
Sample No.
Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in.
Height, in.
Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in.
Height, in.
Strain, %
Strain, %
Strain rate, in./min.
Back Pressure, psi
Cell Pressure, psi
Fail. Stress, psf
Ult. Stress, psf 1 Failure, psf 3 Failure, psf
1 17.6
109.4
87.8 0.5405
2.41 6.00
17.6 109.4
87.8 0.5405
2.41 6.00
0.060
10.3 0.00
5.00 4878
4878
10.3 720
5598
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Axial Strain, %
0 5 10 15 20
1 0
1000
2000
3000
Normal Stress, psf
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
C, psf
, deg
Tan( )
Results
PLATE
Job No: 7767.01.04.2
Groezinger Winery Improvements & Restaurant
6539 Washington Street
Yountville, California
Date: DEC 2023
STRENGTH TEST DATA
13 Tested By: SAA Checked By: SEF
Project: Groezinger Winery Improvements & Restaurant
Source of Sample: B-2 Depth: 4.0'
Proj. No.: 7767.01.04.2 Date Sampled: 11/6/23
Type of Test:
Unconsolidated Undrained
Sample Type: California Modified Tube
Description: Dark Brown Clay W/ Sand (CL)
Assumed Specific Gravity= 2.70
Remarks:
Figure
Sample No.
Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in.
Height, in.
Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in.
Height, in.
Strain, %
Strain, %
Strain rate, in./min.
Back Pressure, psi
Cell Pressure, psi
Fail. Stress, psf
Ult. Stress, psf 1 Failure, psf 3 Failure, psf
1 20.2
105.1
90.0 0.6045
2.41 6.00
20.2 105.1
90.0 0.6045
2.41 6.00
0.060
13.3 0.00
5.00 1534
1534
13.3 720
2254
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Axial Strain, %
0 5 10 15 20
1 0
400
800
1200
Normal Stress, psf
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400
C, psf
, deg
Tan( )
Results
PLATE
Job No: 7767.01.04.2
Groezinger Winery Improvements & Restaurant
6539 Washington Street
Yountville, California
Date: DEC 2023
STRENGTH TEST DATA
14 Tested By: SAA Checked By: SEF
Project: Groezinger Winery Improvements & Restaurant
Source of Sample: B-5 Depth: 3.0'
Proj. No.: 7767.01.04.2 Date Sampled: 11/6/23
Type of Test:
Unconsolidated Undrained
Sample Type: California Modified Tube
Description: Dark Brown Sandy Clay (CL)
Assumed Specific Gravity= 2.70
Remarks:
Figure
Sample No.
Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in.
Height, in.
Water Content, %
Dry Density, pcf
Saturation, %
Void Ratio
Diameter, in.
Height, in.
Strain, %
Strain, %
Strain rate, in./min.
Back Pressure, psi
Cell Pressure, psi
Fail. Stress, psf
Ult. Stress, psf 1 Failure, psf 3 Failure, psf
1 18.5
102.6
77.5 0.6436
2.38 5.90
18.5 102.6
77.5 0.6436
2.38 5.90
0.060
2.0 0.00
5.00 3213
3213
2.0 720
3933
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Axial Strain, %
0 1.5 3 4.5 6
1 0
700
1400
2100
Normal Stress, psf
0 700 1400 2100 2800 3500 4200
C, psf
, deg
Tan( )
Results
PLATE
Job No: 7767.01.04.2
Groezinger Winery Improvements & Restaurant
6539 Washington Street
Yountville, California
Date: DEC 2023
SLAB UNDERDRAIN
Slab
Slab Rock
Slab Rock
4" min. Perforated
Plastic Pipe
6" SDR 35 or better
(min)
6"
(min)
Perforated
Underslab
Drain Pipe
Solid Outlet Pipe to
Approved Outlet
Lateral @ 15-foot intervals
(both ways) and to drain all
isolated underslab areas
TYPICAL UNDERSLAB DRAIN PLAN
TYPICAL SUBDRAIN DETAILS
15 PLATE
Job No: 7767.01.04.2
Groezinger Winery Improvements & Restaurant
6539 Washington Street
Yountville, California
Date: DEC 2023
RGH
CONSULTANTS
Geotechnical Study Report Groezinger Winery Building Improvements and Restaurant Addition
December 22, 2023 Project Number: 7767.01.04.2
Page B-1
APPENDIX B - REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-16.
Bezore, Stephen, et al., 2005, Geologic Map of the Yountville 7.5’ Quadrangle, Napa County, California: A Digital Database: California Geological Survey.
Bryant, W.A., and Hart, E.W., Interim Revision 2007, Fault-Rupture Zones in California; California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, p. 21 with Appendices A through F.
Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), 2014, Building Seismic Safety Council 2014 Event Set, accessed between October 2019 and February 2020. Available online at https://earthquake.usgs.gov/scenarios/catalog/bssc2014/.
California Building Code, 2022, California Building Standard Commission.
Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W., 2004, Semi-Empirical Procedures for Evaluating Liquefaction Potential During Earthquakes, Proceedings of the 11th ICSDEE and 3rd ICEGE, pp. 32-56.
Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W., 2008, Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes.
Ishihara, K., and Yoshimine, M., 1992, Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits following liquefaction during earthquakes, Soils and Foundations 32(1), 173-88.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture, accessed December 2023. Web Soil Survey, available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/.
Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground Motion and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California.
Seed, H.B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L.F., and Chung, R.M., 1985, Influence of SPT Procedures in Soil Liquefaction Resistance Evaluations: Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, v. III, no. 12, December, p. 1425-1445.
Youd, T.L., and Idriss, I.M., and 19 others, 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils:
ASCE Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Journal, v. 127, no. 10, p. 817-833.
RGH
CONSULTANTS
Geotechnical Study Report Groezinger Winery Building Improvements and Restaurant Addition
December 22, 2023 Project Number: 7767.01.04.2
EGC:JJP:aku:brw
Copyright 2023 by RGH Consultants
https://rghgeo.sharepoint.com/sites/shared/shared documents/project files/7501-7999/7767/7767.01.04.2 groezinger winery improv. & restaurant/.01 - gs/7767.01.04.2 gs report.docx
Page C-1
APPENDIX C - DISTRIBUTION
Boardwalk Investment Group (e)
Attention: Astrid Collins
1945 Placentia Avenue, Building D
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
[email protected]
ZFA Structural Engineers (e)
Attention: Chris Jonas
[email protected]
Important Information About Your
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes The following information is provided to help you manage your risks.
Geotechnical Services Are Performed for
Specifi c Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specifi c needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfi ll the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without fi rst conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one - not even you - should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.
Read the Full Report
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary.
Do not read selected elements only.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on
A Unique Set of Project-Specifi c Factors
Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specifi c factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client’s goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and confi guration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifi cally indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:
• not prepared for you,
• not prepared for your project,
• not prepared for the specifi c site explored, or
• completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect:
• the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed from a parking garage to an offi ce building, or from alight industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse,
• elevation, confi guration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure,
• composition of the design team, or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes - even minor ones - and request an assessment of their impact.
Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed.
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as fl oods, earthquakes, or groundwater fl uctuations. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems.
Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional
Opinions
Site exploration identifi es subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review fi eld and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ-sometimes signifi cantly from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions.
A Report’s Recommendations Are Not Final
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not fi nal, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can fi nalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report’s recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to
Misinterpretation
Other design team members’ misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifi cations. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the Engineer’s Logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare fi nal boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of fi eld logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.
Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Give Contractors a Complete Report and
Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report’s accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specifi c types of information they need or prefer.
A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have suffi cient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the fi nancial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines.
This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly.
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenvironmental study differ signifi cantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental fi ndings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk management guidance.
Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else.
Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent signifi cant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a number of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infi ltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose fi ndings are conveyed in-this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services performed in connection with the geotechnical engineer’s study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be suffi cient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved.
Rely on Your ASFE-Member Geotechnical
Engineer For Additional Assistance
Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefi t for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with your ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone:’ 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017
e-mail: [email protected] www.asfe.org
Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE’s specifi c written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other fi rm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being anASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
IIGER06045.0M
The Best People on Earth
CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO ORDERING OR FABRICATING MATERIALS TYPICAL HEADER U.O.N. 6x8 DF#1 w/ 2x TRIMMERS. USE DBL 2x TRIMMERS EA SIDE FOR HEADERS SPANNING > 5'-0" 1 2 3 4
ABC (N) 12"W x 24"D FTG. w/ (2) #5 TOP & (2) #5 BOTTOM, U.O.N. (4) #4 x 36" DOWELS (2 TOP, 2 BOTTOM) INTO (E) FOOTING. EMBED 4" MIN w/ SET-3G EPOXY AND TIE INTO (N) FOOTING REINFORCEMENT, PER (4) #4 x 36" DOWELS (2 TOP, 2 BOTTOM) INTO (E) FOOTING. EMBED 4" MIN w/ SET-3G EPOXY AND TIE INTO (N) FOOTING REINFORCEMENT. (N) 24"W x 24"D FTG. w/ (2) #5 TOP & (2) #5 BOTTOM, U.O.N. (N) 24"W x 24"D FTG. w/ (2) #5 TOP & (2) #5 BOTTOM, U.O.N. (E) FTG. (E) FTG. (E) RAISED FLOOR FRAMING TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. HARDY FRAME SMF HFSMF-2411181 SEE SHEETS HFMF1 - HFMF3 AND DETAIL F6/SD3 FOR CONCRETE GRADE BEAM OVER FOOTING AT MOMENT FRAMES 4'-6" 18'-8" 4'-0" 6" (N) 36"SQ x 24"D FTG. w/ (4) #4 EACH WAY, 3" CLR FROM BOTTOM (N) 36"SQ x 24"D FTG. w/ (4) #4 EACH WAY, 3" CLR FROM BOTTOM (E) FTG. 13'-9
1 2" 20'-4" 2'-4
1 2" 25'-1"
1'-4"
2'-4" 60"SQ x 24"D FTG. w/ #4 @ 12" O.C. BOTH WAYS, TOP AND BOTTOM, TYP. EACH SIDE OF MOMENT FRAME 60"SQ x 24"D FTG. w/ #4 @ 12" O.C. BOTH WAYS, TOP & BOTTOM, TYP. EACH SIDE OF MOMENT FRAME F1 SD3 F3 SD3 F4 SD3 F5 SD3 F2 SD3 F6 SD3 F6 SD3 01.10.25 (530) 672-1600 SHEET #: REVISIONS C:\Users\Ben\Desktop\Work Folder\2024\Yountville_Restaurant_322\PHASE 2\2_Structurals\Yountville_Restaurant_Phase 2_322.dwg 1/10/2025 9:56:46 AM BEN (BEN) 6539 WASHINGTON STREET
FOUNDATION PLAN
YOUNTVILLE, CA 94599
ESTATE YOUNTVILLE RESTAURANT S2.0 FOUNDATION PLAN SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" F1 (N) PERIMETER FOOTING NO SCALE WIDTH PER PLAN
DEPTH
PER PLAN THIN BRICK VENEER. PER ARCHITECTURAL SHEETS (E) FLOOR FRAMING REBAR PER PLAN 8" STEM WALL 5 8" x 10" A.B. @ 6'-0" O.C., UON. PROVIDE 3"x3"x
1 4" SQUARE PLATE WASHERS
3" CLR. (N) 2x STUDS @ 16" MAX. O.C. w/ 1
2" CDX EA. SIDE NAILED w/ 10D @ 6/12, UON (N) FTG. PER PLAN E.N. SEE ARCHITECTURAL SHEETS FOR FINISHED FLOOR MATERIAL AND FLASHING (N) WOOD FLOOR PER 10d @ 6" O.C. ARCHITECTURAL SHEETS E.N. PT LEDGER TO (N) CONCRETE STEM WALL w/ (2) 5 8" ANCHORS @ 16" O.C. HANG (E) JOISTS TO LEDGER w/ LU HANGER OR EQUAL. #4 @ 18" MAX O.C. HORIZONTALLY & VERTICALLY TYP. FOOTING @ RAISED FLOOR F2 NO SCALE WIDTH PER PLAN DEPTH
PER PLAN (E) FLOOR FRAMING REBAR PER PLAN 8" CURB
3" CLR. (N) FTG. PER PLAN SEE ARCHITECTURAL SHEETS FOR FINISHED FLOOR MATERIAL AND FLASHING (N) WOOD FLOOR PER ARCHITECTURAL SHEETS PROVIDE BITUTHANE OR OTHER WATERPROOFING BETWEEN CONCRETE AND WOODPT LEDGER TO (N) CONCRETE STEM WALL w/ (2) 5 8" ANCHORS @ 16" OC HANG (E) JOISTS TO LEDGER w/ LU HANGER OR EQUAL #4 @ 18" MAX OC VERTICALLY & HORIZONTALLY, TYP. (E) FLOOR JOISTS P.T. SILL PIN UP WALL 2x BLOCKING F3 INTERIOR FOOTING DETAIL NO SCALE A35 @ 32" MAX OC 5 8" x 10" A.B. @ 4'-0" O.C., UON. PROVIDE 3"x3"x
1 4" SQUARE PLATE WASHERS WIDTH PER PLAN
DEPTH
PER PLAN
3" CLR. 10" STEM WALL (N) 2x10 WALL REBAR PER PLAN #4 @ 18" MAX OC VERTICALLY & HORIZONTALLY, TYP. 3 8" MIN OSB OR PLYWOOD w/ 8D @ 6/12, UON
3 8" MIN OSB OR PLYWOOD w/ 8D @ 6/12, UON 16D @ 10" OC F4 (N) FOOTING FROM RETAINING WALL NO SCALE 45° BOTTOM OF (N) FOOTING SHALL BE BELOW AN IMAGINARY 45° LINE OF PROJECTION FROM BOTTOM OF (E) RETAINING WALL FOOTING (E) RETAINING WALL FOOTING (N) FOOTING F5 DOWEL (N) FOOTING INTO (E) FOOTING NO SCALE (E) FTG (N) FTG REBAR PER PLAN (4) #4 DOWELS (2 TOP, 2 BOT.) PER PLAN 4" MIN. (E) FTG (N) FTGREBAR PER PLAN NEW (E)4" MIN. LAP DOWELS w/ (N) FTG REIN. PLAN VIEW PLAN VIEW LAP DOWELS w/ (N) FTG REIN. (4) #4 DOWELS (2 TOP, 2 BOT.) PER PLAN 2"
2 7
8" #4 STIRRUPS @ 4" OC (7) #6 EVENLY SPACED (7) #6 EVENLY SPACED 24" 24" 3" CLR 135° BENDS HARDY MOMENT FRAME SPREAD FOOTING PER PLAN REINFORCEMENT NOT SHOWN HARDY MOMENT FRAME TYPICAL STRIP SPREAD FOOTING PER PLAN FOOTING- REINFORCEMENT NOT SHOWN #4 STIRRUPS @ 4" OC (7) #6 EVENLY SPACED TOP & BOT 9" 12" 12" GRADE BEAM EXTENSION PAST COLUMN W14x53 MITEK COLUMN 1 4 TYP. REBAR TO FLANGE W14x53 COLUMN 90° STD HOOK #4 STIRRUPS @ 4" OC (7) #6 EVENLY SPACED (7) #6 EVENLY SPACED F6 GRADE BEAM AT MITEK MOMENT FRAME COLUMN NO SCALE W14x53 MITEK COLUMN PLAN VIEW ELEVATION VIEW SECTION VIEW TYPICAL STRIP FOOTING- REINFORCEMENT NOT SHOWN SEE SHEET HFMF3 FOR STIRRUPS REQUIRED IN FOOTING BENEATH GRADE BEAM AT COLUMN ANCHORAGE LOCATIONS UNDISTURBED GRADE SEE SHEETS HFMF2 & HFMF3 FOR COLUMN BASE PLATE & ANCHORAGE SEE SHEET HFMF3 FOR STIRRUPS REQUIRED IN FOOTING BENEATH GRADE BEAM AT COLUMN ANCHORAGE LOCATIONS 01.10.25 (530) 672-1600 SHEET #: REVISIONS C:\Users\Ben\Desktop\Work Folder\2024\Yountville_Restaurant_322\PHASE 2\2_Structurals\Yountville_Restaurant_Phase 2_322.dwg 1/10/2025 9:56:46 AM BEN (BEN) 6539 WASHINGTON STREET
STRUCTURAL DETAILS
YOUNTVILLE, CA 94599
ESTATE YOUNTVILLE RESTAURANT SD3
N 54°21'36" W 61.39' N 47°51'51" E 57.00'
N 42°08'09" W 500.01'
S 49°01'20" E 55.34'
S 49°48'20" E 130.47'
R=5549.90' Δ=04°10'09" L=403.85' N 55°22'00" E 13.57'
5 S 49°48'20" E 8.00'
30 3132 33 1
2 36 37
38 41 40 39 44 43 42 51
5049 4847 46 45 52 53
1 2
3 1
4 85 84
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 23
22 25
24 28
27 26
31 30
29 32
35 34
33 37
36 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 350.13'
N 50°51'00" E 376.84'
200.01' 160.00' 140.00'
N 55°22'00" E 363.70'
L=133.08'
CO .
RIM 102.80
CO .
RIM 96.75
CO .
RIM 96.61
CO .
VLT
VLT
E UB
E UB
E UB
E UB
CO .
RIM 96.64
TEL
UB
E UB
E UB
RIM 95.24
SS UB
E UB
TEL
UB
UB
FOUNTAIN & PLANTER
E UB
AC AC
AC
AC
RESTROOM
RESTROOM
LANDSCAPING
GRASS
GRASS GRASS
GRASS
BRICK
SIGN
AC
AC
TRASH
ENCLOSURE CO .
RIM 96.37
AC
POOL
SPA
GATE
UB
GATE
E UB
SL UB
VLT
GATE
VLT
E UB
TEL
UB
SL
UB
SIGN
T UB
E UB
E UB
SL
UB
E UB
GATE
TF
GM
GM
HVAC
E UB
DW
LANDSCAPING
GRASS
FOUNTAIN
GM
HEDGE
E UB
UB
E UB
UB
WM WM
W UB
W UB
GM
E UB
UB
FOUNTAIN
GATE
BFP
SEAT WALL
PL PL PL
BUILDING UB
BUILDING
BUILDING
BUILDING
BUILDING
CHARGING
STATION
W UB
RIM 105.11 GATE
12" SD
10" SD
12" SD
18" SD
12" SD 10" SD
10" SD
3" SD
8" SD
8" SD
8" SD
8" SD
12" SD
12" SD
12" SD
12" SD
12" SD
BRICK
BRICK
AC
AC
LANDSCAPING
LANDSCAPING
DIRT
LANDSCAPING
LANDSCAPING
GRASS
8" SD
GRASS
SD
LANDSCAPING
GRASS
GRASS
BKF PT #1 .
MAG NAIL
ELEV: 99.98
AC
AC
AC DIKE
GATE
WOOD CURB
WOOD CURB
WOOD CURB
EP
WOOD CURB
8" SD
4" SD
3" SD
10" SD
3" SD
3" SD
10" SD
AC DIKE
WALL
BOLLARD
TYP
WOOD CURB
WOOD CURB
WOOD CURB
WOOD CURB
WOOD CURB
AC
LANDSCAPING
LANDSCAPING
PL
GB
PL PL
GRASS
GRASS
AC
GB
AC
AC
GRASS
GRASS
AC
AC
GRAVEL
PL
PL PL
AC DIKE
AC DIKE WOOD CURB
AC
RAISED CONCRETE
PLANTER
COLUMN
(TYP)
HANDRAIL
(TYP)
HANDRAIL
(TYP)
RAISED
CONCRETE
PLANTER
WALL
STONE
WALL
PL
RAISED STONE
PLANTER
BRICK WALL
WALL
WOOD CURB
COLUMN
(TYP)
COLUMN
(TYP)
12-IN TREE
20-IN TREE
16-IN CYP
12-IN OAK
14-IN OAK
14-IN OAK
14-IN OAK
12-IN OAK
9-IN OAK
16-IN OAK
10-IN ALM
11-IN TREE
10-IN TREE
10-IN TREE
9-IN BRCH
36-IN PALM
9-IN RWD
10-IN RWD
11-IN RWD
11-IN RWD
12-IN RWD
36-IN TREE
12-IN RWD
12-IN RWD
12-IN RWD
22-IN CYP
28-IN FIR
28-IN FIR
32-IN FIR
12-IN PINE
18-IN OAK
12-IN TREE
12-IN TREE
18-IN PINE
9-IN PLUM
18-IN TREE
12-IN MAG
12-IN MAP
10-IN TREE
20-IN PALM
24-IN PINE
26-IN PALM
9-IN TREE
12-IN TREE
12-IN TREE
10-IN TREE
9-IN TREE
12-IN TREE
12-IN TREE
12-IN TREE
9-IN TREE
24-IN OAK
24-IN PINE
14-IN TREE
9-IN TREE
9-IN TREE
9-IN TREE
9-IN TREE
9-IN TREE
11-IN TREE
9-IN FIR
16-IN FIR
14-IN FIR
9-IN TREE
8-IN TREE
12-IN TREE
30-IN PALM
12-IN TREE
10-IN TREE
18-IN PALM
18-IN PALM
105
102
103
104
104
104
104
105
104
100
97 98
99 101
102
103
104
105
104
100 98
99 101
102
105
104
103
104
105
102
103
106
103
104
100
98 99
101
102
103
WASHINGTON STREET WIDTH VARIES HUMBOLDT ST.
DRIVEWAY
15'-0"
20'-0"
6541 WASHINGTON STREET
TRACT THREE PARCEL ONE
APN. 036 - 330 - 005 - 000
LOT SIZE 3.56 ACRES
6525 WASHINGTON STREET
TRACT SIX PARCEL THREE
APN. 036 - 330 - 009 - 000
LOT SIZE 6.53 ACRES
6539 WASHINGTON STREET
TRACT THREE PARCEL ONE
APN. 036 - 330 - 006 - 000
LOT SIZE 1.23 ACRES
These documents are the property of Backen & Backen Architecture. Any unauthorized use without the written consent is prohibited by law. Backen & Backen Architecure disclaims responsibility for the documents if used whole or in part atany other location.
Copyright © 2023 by BACKEN & BACKEN 3/13/25 S:\2022\202245 - The Estate Yountville\1-Drawings\01-Current\RESTAURANT\01_Sheet Files\AR1.2 Site Plan Proposed.dwg Plot Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project No.
Date 6539 WASHINGTON STREET YOUNTVILLE, CA 94599 ESTATE YOUNTVILLE -202245 RESTAURANT
SCALE :
-
TRUE NORTH
DRAWING NORTH
SHEET NOTES
AR1.2
PROPOSED
SITE PLAN
0 10' 20' 40'
1. PROPOSED RESTAURANT TRELLIS & DINING ROOM
ROOF
2. EXISTING ONE-STORY BRICK AND WOOD
RESTAURANT BUILDING
3. NOT USED
4. PROPERTY LINE
5. EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN
6. 20 FT. WATER EASEMENT
7. 15 FT. SETBACK
8. EXISTING PARKING TO REMAIN
9. EDGE OF PAVEMENT
10. NOT USED
11. EXISTING ONE-STORY CONCRETE TRASH
ENCLOSURE TO REMAIN
12. EXISTING WOOD MAINTENANCE BUILDING TO REMAIN
13. EXISTING BARBED WIRE FENCE TO REMAIN
14. EXISTING CONCRETE PAVING TO REMAIN
15. EXISTING TWO-STORY WOOD BUILDING
16. EXISTING POOL
17. 6541 WASHINGTON STREET - EXISTING TWO-STORY
BRICK AND WOOD BUILDING
18. EXISTING ONE-STORY WOOD BUILDING
19. EXISTING ONE-STORY STONE CLAD BUILDING
20. EXISTING ADA PARKING STALLS AND ACCESSIBILITY
TO REMAIN UNCHANGED
PROJECT DATA (PROPOSED)
LOCAL JURISDICATION: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE, CA
PROJECT ADDRESS: 6539 WASHINGTON STREET
YOUNTVILLE, CA 94599
LOT SIZE: 1.23 ACRES
ZONING: PC - PRIMARY COMMERCIAL
OCCUPANCY GROUP: A-2
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE V-A
NO. OF STORIES: 2-STORY
PROPOSED GROSS FLOOR AREA
BASEMENT 0 SF.
EXISTING GROUND FLOOR 5,045 SF.
NEW TERRACE 2,284 SF.
TOTAL 7,329 SF.
N 55°22'00" E 363.70'
105
105
104
102
104
104
ST-01
ST-02
WD-01
TL-20
WD-01 WD-01
WD-03 TL-13/TL14
TL-13/TL-14
TL-23
MW-03
MW-01
MW-02
MW-05
MW-06
MW-08
TL-13/TL14
ST-01
ST-01
ST-02
ST-03
TL-13/TL14
MW-07
MW-04
MW-09A MW-09A
MW-09B
MW-10 MW-07
MW-11
MW-12
MW-01
MW-08
MW-08
MW-08
MW-08
1 - FLOOR FINISH PLAN
These documents are the property of Backen & Backen Architecture. Any unauthorized use without the written consent is prohibited by law. Backen & Backen Architecure disclaims responsibility for the documents if used whole or in part atany other location.
Copyright © 2023 by BACKEN & BACKEN 3/13/25 S:\2022\202245 - The Estate Yountville\1-Drawings\01-Current\RESTAURANT MINOR REMODEL\01_Sheet Files\AR2.5 RESTAURANT FLOOR FINISH PLAN.dwg Plot Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project No.
Date 6539 WASHINGTON STREET YOUNTVILLE, CA 94599 ESTATE YOUNTVILLE -202245 RESTAURANT
SCALE :
-
TRUE NORTH
DRAWING NORTH
AR2.5
FLOOR FINISH
PLAN
0 1' 4' 8'
12 7
REPLACEMENT PTD. WD. DOOR
SYSTEM
FIN. FLOOR
0'-0"
EXISTING BRICK EAST WALL TO
REMAIN.
REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING
BRICK PER NEW DOOR & WINDOW
OPENINGS
"KINGSPAN GRIDSPAN" RIDGE SKYLIGHT
CLASS A ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF ASSEMBLY 6'-8" 10" 2'-0"
REPLACEMENT ROOF / TRUSS FRAMING, SSD.
WD. PURLINS SSD.
12 7
E102
NEW CALIFORNIA ROOF FRAMING
ROOF CRICKET AS NEEDED
EXISTING ROOF FRAMING TO
REMAIN
REPLACEMENT INTERIOR
WALL PER PLAN
T.O. SITE WALL
+2'-0"
B.O. BEAM @ TRELLIS
+9'-6"
4X4 WOOD POST
BRICK VENEER BASE WALL
PAVERS O/
SAND SETTING BED O/
COMPACTED DRAINAGE AGGREGATE BASE
WOOD BRACKET CUT FROM
4X12 WD. MEMBER
4X8 WD. BEAM W/ A PAIR OF 2X8 WD.
MEMBERS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE POST
PENDANT LIGHT PER INT.
DESIGNER
INFRATECH HEATER
EXISTING FIN. GRADE
FIN. FLOOR
0'-0"
FIN. OPENING
+9'-6"
T.O.TRELLIS
+10'-10"
1X4 BASE TRIM
2X2 WD. TOP MEMBERS
4X8 WD.BEAMS AT POSTS, 2X8
WD.RAFTERS BETWEEN POSTS
These documents are the property of Backen & Backen Architecture. Any unauthorized use without the written consent is prohibited by law. Backen & Backen Architecure disclaims responsibility for the documents if used whole or in part atany other location.
Copyright © 2023 by BACKEN & BACKEN 3/14/25 S:\2022\202245 - The Estate Yountville\1-Drawings\01-Current\RESTAURANT MINOR REMODEL\01_Sheet Files\AR3.xx - RESTAURANT ELEVATIONS.dwg Plot Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project No.
Date 6539 WASHINGTON STREET YOUNTVILLE, CA 94599 ESTATE YOUNTVILLE -202245 RESTAURANT
SCALE :
-
1 RENOVATED MAIN DINING ROOM AND AWNING SECTION
AR4.0
SECTION
FIN. FLOOR
0'-0"
T.O. SITE WALL
+2'-0"
B.O.BEAM AT TRELLIS
+9'-6"
EXISTING FIN. GRADE
T.O.TRELLIS
+10'-10"
PAVERS O/
BEDDING LAYER O/
CONCRETE SLAB O/
COMPACTED DRAINAGE AGGREGATE BASE
4X4 WOOD POST
2X2 WD. TOP MEMBERS
4X8 WD. BEAM W/ A PAIR OF
2X8 WD. MEMBERS ON
EITHER SIDE OF THE POST
INFRATECH HEATER
WOOD BRACKET CUT
FROM 4X12 WD. MEMBER
PENDANT LIGHT PER INT.
DESIGNER
INFRATECH HEATER 6'-8" 10" 2'-0"
"KINGSPAN GRIDSPAN" RIDGE
SKYLIGHT
REPLACEMENT ROOF / TRUSS
FRAMING, SSD.
WD. PURLINS SSD.
REPLACEMENT PTD.
WD. DOOR SYSTEM
REPLACEMENT NORTH WD.
FRAMED WALL W/ BRICK VENEER
FIN. FLOOR
0'-0"
FIN. OPENING
+9'-6"
E100 E101
BRICK VENEER BASE
WALL
1X4 BASE TRIM
4X8 WD.BEAMS AT POSTS,
2X8 WD. RAFTERS
BETWEEN POSTS
These documents are the property of Backen & Backen Architecture. Any unauthorized use without the written consent is prohibited by law. Backen & Backen Architecure disclaims responsibility for the documents if used whole or in part atany other location.
Copyright © 2023 by BACKEN & BACKEN 3/14/25 S:\2022\202245 - The Estate Yountville\1-Drawings\01-Current\RESTAURANT MINOR REMODEL\01_Sheet Files\AR3.xx - RESTAURANT ELEVATIONS.dwg Plot Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project No.
Date 6539 WASHINGTON STREET YOUNTVILLE, CA 94599 ESTATE YOUNTVILLE -202245 RESTAURANT
SCALE :
-
1 RENOVATED MAIN DINING ROOM AND AWNING LONGITUDINAL SECTION AR4.1
SECTION
These documents are the property of Backen & Backen Architecture. Any unauthorized use without the written consent is prohibited by law. Backen & Backen Architecure disclaims responsibility for the documents if used whole or in part atany other location.
Copyright © 2023 by BACKEN & BACKEN 3/4/24 S:\2022\202245 - The Estate Yountville\1-Drawings\01-Current\RESTAURANT\01_Sheet Files\AR0.0 Cover Sheet.dwg Plot Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project No.
Date 6539 WASHINGTON STREET YOUNTVILLE, CA 94599 ESTATE YOUNTVILLE -202245
12/19/23 LAND USE APP. RESTAURANT
SCALE :
- AR0.0
COVER SHEET
ESTATE YOUNTVILLE RESTAURANT
YOUNTVILLE, CA, 94599
N 54°21'36" W 61.39' N 47°51'51" E 57.00'
N 42°08'09" W 500.01'
20" E 55.34'
S 49°48'20" E 130.47'
R=5549.90' Δ=04°10'09" L=403.85' N 55°22'00" E 13.57'
5 S 49°48'20" E 8.00'
30 3132 33 1
2 36 37
38 41 40 39 44 43 42 51
5049 4847 46 45 52 53
1 2
3 1
4 85 84
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 23
22 25
24 28
27 26
31 30
29 32
35 34
33 37
36 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 350.13'
N 50°51'00" E 376.84'
200.01' 160.00' 140.00'
N 55°22'00" E 363.70'
L=133.08'
CO .
RIM 102.80
CO .
RIM 96.75
CO .
RIM 96.61
CO .
VLT
VLT
E UB
E UB
E UB
E UB
CO .
RIM 96.64
TEL
UB
RAMP
E UB
E UB
RIM 95.24
RAMP
SS UB
E UB
TEL
UB
UB
FOUNTAIN & PLANTER
BUILDING
E UB
AC AC
AC
AC
LANDSCAPING
GRASS
GRASS
RESTROOM
RESTROOM
LANDSCAPING
GRASS
RAMP
GRASS GRASS
GRASS
BRICK
SIGN
AC
AC
PATIO
TRASH
ENCLOSURE CO .
RIM 96.37
GRAVEL
AC
POOL
SPA
GATE
UB
GATE
E UB
SL UB
VLT
GATE
VLT
E UB
TEL
UB
SL
UB
SIGN
T UB
E UB
E UB
SL
UB
E UB
GATE
TF
GM
GM
HVAC
E UB
E UB
BFP
GM
BFP
UB
DW
LANDSCAPING RAMP
GRASS
FOUNTAIN
GM
HEDGE RAMP
E UB
UB
E UB
UB
WM WM
W UB
W UB
GM
GATE
E UB
UB
FOUNTAIN
GATE
BFP
SEAT WALL
PL PL PL
BUILDING UB
BUILDING
BUILDING
BUILDING
BUILDING
CHARGING
STATION
W UB
RIM 105.11 GATE
12" SD
10" SD
12" SD
18" SD
12" SD 10" SD
10" SD
3" SD
8" SD
8" SD
8" SD
8" SD
12" SD
12" SD
12" SD
12" SD
12" SD
BRICK
BRICK
AC
AC
LANDSCAPING
LANDSCAPING
DIRT
DIRT
LANDSCAPING
LANDSCAPING
LANDSCAPING
GRASS
8" SD
GRASS
SD
LANDSCAPING
GRASS
GRASS
BKF PT #1 .
MAG NAIL
ELEV: 99.98
WOOD CURB
AC
AC
AC DIKE
GATE
WOOD CURB
WOOD CURB
WOOD CURB
GRAVEL
EP
WOOD CURB
8" SD
4" SD
3" SD
10" SD
3" SD
3" SD
10" SD
AC DIKE
WALL
BOLLARD
TYP
WOOD CURB
WOOD CURB
WOOD CURB
WOOD CURB
WOOD CURB
AC
LANDSCAPING
LANDSCAPING
PL
GB
PL PL
GRASS
GRASS
AC
GB
AC
AC
GRASS
GRASS
AC
AC
GRAVEL
UB PL
PL PL
AC DIKE
AC DIKE WOOD CURB
WALL
AC
RAISED CONCRETE
PLANTER
COLUMN
(TYP)
HANDRAIL
(TYP)
HANDRAIL
(TYP)
RAISED
CONCRETE
PLANTER
WALL
STONE
WALL
PL
RAISED STONE
PLANTER
BRICK WALL
WALL
WALL
WOOD CURB
COLUMN
(TYP)
COLUMN
(TYP)
PL PL
12-IN TREE
20-IN TREE
16-IN CYP
12-IN OAK
14-IN OAK
14-IN OAK
14-IN OAK
12-IN OAK
9-IN OAK
16-IN OAK
10-IN ALM
11-IN TREE
10-IN TREE
10-IN TREE
9-IN BRCH
36-IN PALM
9-IN RWD
10-IN RWD
11-IN RWD
11-IN RWD
12-IN RWD
36-IN TREE
12-IN RWD
12-IN RWD
12-IN RWD
22-IN CYP
28-IN FIR
28-IN FIR
32-IN FIR
12-IN PINE
18-IN OAK
12-IN TREE
12-IN TREE
18-IN PINE
9-IN PLUM
18-IN TREE
12-IN MAG
12-IN MAP
10-IN TREE
20-IN PALM
24-IN PINE
26-IN PALM
9-IN TREE
12-IN TREE
12-IN TREE
10-IN TREE
9-IN TREE
12-IN TREE
12-IN TREE
12-IN TREE
9-IN TREE
24-IN OAK
24-IN PINE
14-IN TREE
9-IN TREE
9-IN TREE
9-IN TREE
9-IN TREE
9-IN TREE
11-IN TREE
9-IN FIR
16-IN FIR
14-IN FIR
9-IN TREE
8-IN TREE
12-IN TREE
30-IN PALM
12-IN TREE
10-IN TREE
18-IN PALM
18-IN PALM
105
102
103
104
104
104
104
105
104
100
97 98
99 101
102
103
104
105
104
100 98
99 101
102
105
104
103
104
105
102
103
106
103
104
100
98 99
101
102
103
WASHINGTON STREET WIDTH VARIES HUMBOLDT ST.
DRIVEWAY
15'-0"
20'-0"
6539 WASHINGTON STREET
TRACT THREE PARCEL ONE
APN. 036 - 330 - 006 - 000
LOT SIZE 1.23 ACRES
6541 WASHINGTON STREET
TRACT THREE PARCEL ONE
APN. 036 - 330 - 005 - 000
LOT SIZE 3.56 ACRES
6525 WASHINGTON STREET
TRACT SIX PARCEL THREE
APN. 036 - 330 - 009 - 000
LOT SIZE 6.53 ACRES
These documents are the property of Backen & Backen Architecture. Any unauthorized use without the written consent is prohibited by law. Backen & Backen Architecure disclaims responsibility for the documents if used whole or in part atany other location.
Copyright © 2023 by BACKEN & BACKEN 1/29/25 S:\2022\202245 - The Estate Yountville\1-Drawings\01-Current\RESTAURANT\01_Sheet Files\AR1.1 Site Plan Existing.dwg Plot Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project No.
Date 6539 WASHINGTON STREET YOUNTVILLE, CA 94599 ESTATE YOUNTVILLE -202245 RESTAURANT
SCALE :
-
TRUE NORTH
DRAWING NORTH
SHEET NOTES
AR1.1
EXISTING
SITE PLAN
0 10' 20' 40'
1. PROPOSED RESTAURANT PATIO FOOTPRINT SHOWN
DASHED
2. EXISTING ONE-STORY RESTAURANT BUILDING BRICK
AND WOOD EXTERIOR
3. NOT USED
4. PROPERTY LINE
5.1 24" PINE TO REMAIN
5.2 36" PALM TO BE REMOVED
5.3 32" FIR TO REMAIN
5.4 28" FIR TO REMAIN
5.5 22" CYPRESS TO REMAIN
5.6 28" FIR TO REMAIN
5.7 12" PINE TO REMAIN
5.8 12" TREE TO REMAIN
5.9 12" TREE TO REMAIN
5.10 12" REDWOOD TO REMAIN
5.11 12" REDWOOD TO REMAIN
5.12 12" REDWOOD TO REMAIN
5.13 18" OAK TO REMAIN
6.1 12" REDWOOD TO REMAIN
6.2 11" REDWOOD TO REMAIN
6.3 11" REDWOOD TO REMAIN
6.4 10" REDWOOD TO REMAIN
6.5 9" REDWOOD TO REMAIN
7. 20 FT. WATER EASEMENT
8. 15 FT. SETBACK
9. EXISTING PARKING TO REMAIN
10. EDGE OF PAVEMENT
11. EXISTING WOOD SHED TO BE REMOVED
12. EXISTING ONE-STORY CONCRETE TRASH
ENCLOSURE TO REMAIN
13. EXISTING WOOD MAINTENANCE BUILDING TO REMAIN
14. EXISTING BARBED WIRE FENCE TO REMAIN
15. EXISTING CONCRETE PAVING TO REMAIN
16. EXISTING TWO-STORY WOOD BUILDING
17. EXISTING POOL
18. 6541 WASHINGTON STREET - EXISTING TWO-STORY
BRICK AND WOOD BUILDING
19. EXISTING ONE-STORY WOOD BUILDING
20. EXISTING ONE-STORY STONE CLAD BUILDING
21. NOT USED
22. EXISTING CONC. PAVING TO BE REMOVED
23. EXISTING RAMPS & PATIO TO BE REMOVED
24. EXISTING FENCE AND STORAGE YARD TO BE
REMOVED
VICINITY MAP
HWY 29 - ST. HELENA HWY. WASHINGTON ST.
YOUNTVILLE CROSS RD.
FINNELL RD.
YOUNT ST.
WEBBER ST. HUMBOLDT ST.
YOUNTVILLE
PROJECT LOCATION
PROJECT DATA (EXISTING)
LOCAL JURISDICATION: TOWN OF YOUNTVILLE, CA
PROJECT ADDRESS: 6539 WASHINGTON STREET
YOUNTVILLE, CA 94599
LOT SIZE: 1.23 ACRES
ZONING: PC - PRIMARY COMMERCIAL
OCCUPANCY GROUP: A-2
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE V-A
NO. OF STORIES: 1-STORY + BASEMENT
EXISTING GROSS FLOOR AREA:
BASEMENT 619 SF.
GROUND FLOOR 5,045 SF.
TOTAL 5,664 SF.
0 350.13'
N 50°51'00" E 376.84'
N 55°22'00" E 363.70'
TEL
UB
SS UB
AC
AC
GATE
GATE
E UB
UB
DIRT
AC DIKE
GATE
GRASS
36-IN PALM
9-IN RWD
10-IN RWD
11-IN RWD
11-IN RWD
12-IN RWD
36-IN TREE
12-IN RWD
12-IN RWD
12-IN RWD
22-IN CYP
28-IN FIR
28-IN FIR
32-IN FIR
12-IN PINE
18-IN OAK
12-IN TREE
12-IN TREE
105
102
103
104
104
104
104
105
104
103
MAIN DINING ROOM
BAR
SUNROOM
These documents are the property of Backen & Backen Architecture. Any unauthorized use without the written consent is prohibited by law. Backen & Backen Architecure disclaims responsibility for the documents if used whole or in part atany other location.
Copyright © 2023 by BACKEN & BACKEN 1/30/25 S:\2022\202245 - The Estate Yountville\1-Drawings\01-Current\RESTAURANT\01_Sheet Files\AR2.1 Existing & Demo Floor Plan.dwg Plot Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project No.
Date 6539 WASHINGTON STREET YOUNTVILLE, CA 94599 ESTATE YOUNTVILLE -202245 RESTAURANT
SCALE :
-
1 AR2.1
EXISTING / DEMO SITE PLAN
TRUE NORTH
DRAWING NORTH
0 1' 8' 16'
AR2.1
EXISTING / DEMO
SITE PLAN
SHEET NOTES
1.1 12" REDWOOD TREE TO REMAIN
1.2 11" REDWOOD TREE TO REMAIN
1.3 11" REDWOOD TREE TO REMAIN
1.4 10" REDWOOD TREE TO REMAIN
1.5 9" REDWOOD TREE TO REMAIN
1.6 18" OAK TO REMAIN
1.7 36" PAL TREE TO REMAIN
2. DEMO EXISTING CONCRETE PAVING / RAMPS SHOWN
DASHED
3. DEMO EXISITNG PATIO SHOWN DASHED
4. DEMO EXISTING EXTERIOR WALLS, WINDOWS, DOORS
SHOWN DASHED
5. PROPERTY LINE
6.1 NOT USED
6.2 32" FIR TREE TO REMAIN
6.3 28" FIR TREE TO REMAIN
6.4 22" CYPRESS TREE TO REMAIN
6.5 28" FIR TREE TO REMAIN
6.6 12" PINE TREE TO REMAIN
6.7 12" TREE TO REMAIN
6.8 12" TREE TO REMAIN
6.9 12" REDWOOD TREE TO REMAIN
6.10 12" REDWOOD TREE TO REMAIN
6.11 12" REDWOOD TREE TO REMAIN
7. EXISTING PARKING TO REMAIN
8. EXISTING WOOD SHED, FENCING AND STORAGE
YARD TO BE REMOVED.
9. EXISTING INTERIOR WALLS SHOWN SOLID TO REMAIN,
SSD.
10. KITCHEN EQUIPMENT & HOOD TO REMAIN.
11. EXISTING BASEMENT BELOW SHOWN SHADED TO BE
FILLED, SSD.
SEAT COUNT (EXISTING)
PROPOSED USE SEAT COUNT
BAR 20
MAIN DINING ROOM 68
SUNROOM 32
PATIO 50
TOTAL EXISTING SEATING 170
PROJECT DATA (EXISTING)
OCCUPANCY GROUP: A-2
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE V-A
NO. OF STORIES: 1-STORY + BASEMENT
EXISTING GROSS FLOOR AREA:
BASEMENT 619 SF.
GROUND FLOOR 5,045 SF.
TOTAL 5,664 SF.
EXISTING GROSS FLOOR AREA TO BE DEMOLISHED:
BASEMENT 619 SF.
GROUND FLOOR 0 SF.
TOTAL TO BE DEMOLISHED 619 SF.
PERCENTAGE TO BE DEMOLISHED:
619 / 5,664 = 10%
350.13'
N 50°51'00" E 376.84'
N 55°22'00" E 363.70'
103.26
103.89
103.43 TC
105
102
103
104
104
104
104
105
104
102
103
2 AR3.10
1 AR3.11
1 AR3.10
2 AR3.11
These documents are the property of Backen & Backen Architecture. Any unauthorized use without the written consent is prohibited by law. Backen & Backen Architecure disclaims responsibility for the documents if used whole or in part atany other location.
Copyright © 2023 by BACKEN & BACKEN 2/6/25 S:\2022\202245 - The Estate Yountville\1-Drawings\01-Current\RESTAURANT\01_Sheet Files\AR2.2 Ground Floor Plan.dwg Plot Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project No.
Date 6539 WASHINGTON STREET YOUNTVILLE, CA 94599 ESTATE YOUNTVILLE -202245 RESTAURANT
SCALE :
-
1 AR2.2
PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN AR2.2
GROUND
FLOOR PLAN
SHEET NOTES
SEAT COUNT (PROPOSED)
PROPOSED USE SEAT COUNT
BAR 54
MAIN DINING ROOM 38
GARDEN DINING ROOM 46
PRIVATE DINING ROOM 16
OUTDOOR PATIO 16
TOTAL EXISTING SEATING 170
TRUE NORTH
DRAWING NORTH
0 1' 8' 16'
1. EXISTING ONE-STORY BUILDING BRICK AND WOOD
EXTERIOR FOOTPRINT SHOWN DASHED
2. NOT USED PROPERTY LINE
3. EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN
4. EXISTING PARKING TO REMAIN
5. NOT USED
6. PROPERTY LINE
7. NEW TERRACE
8. EXISTING BAR TO REMAIN
9. EXISTING SUNROOM TO REMAIN
10. RENOVATED MAIN DINING ROOM
11. EXISTING KITCHEN TO REMAIN
12. EXISTING KITCHEN PREP TO REMAIN
13. EXISTING GENDER NEUTRAL BATHROOM TO REMAIN
14. EXISTING MEAT AGING TO REMAIN
15. EXISTING WALK-IN COOLER TO REMAIN
16. EXISTING DRY STORAGE TO REMAIN
0 22'00" E 3
105
105
104
102
104
104
ST-01
ST-02
WD-01
TL-20
WD-01 WD-01
WD-03 TL-13/TL14
TL-13/TL-14
TL-23
MW-03
MW-01
MW-02
MW-05
MW-06
MW-08
TL-13/TL14
ST-01
ST-01
ST-02
ST-03
TL-13/TL14
MW-07
MW-04
MW-09A MW-09A
MW-09B
MW-10 MW-07
MW-11
MW-12
MW-01
MW-08
MW-08
MW-08
MW-08
1 - FLOOR FINISH PLAN
These documents are the property of Backen & Backen Architecture. Any unauthorized use without the written consent is prohibited by law. Backen & Backen Architecure disclaims responsibility for the documents if used whole or in part atany other location.
Copyright © 2023 by BACKEN & BACKEN 2/6/25 S:\2022\202245 - The Estate Yountville\1-Drawings\01-Current\RESTAURANT MINOR REMODEL\01_Sheet Files\AR2.3 RESTAURANT FLOOR FINISH PLAN.dwg Plot Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project No.
Date 6539 WASHINGTON STREET YOUNTVILLE, CA 94599 ESTATE YOUNTVILLE -202245 RESTAURANT
SCALE :
-
TRUE NORTH
DRAWING NORTH
AR2.2B
FLOOR FINISH
PLAN
0 1' 4' 8'
350.13'
N 50°51'00" E 376.84'
N 55°22'00" E 363.70'
103.26
103.89
103.43 TC
105
102
103
104
104
104
104
105
104
102
103
2 AR3.10
1 AR3.11
1 AR3.10
2 AR3.11
7:12 7:12 SLOPE
SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE
SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE SLOPE These documents are the property of Backen & Backen Architecture. Any unauthorized use without the written consent is prohibited by law. Backen & Backen Architecure disclaims responsibility for the documents if used whole or in part atany other location.
Copyright © 2023 by BACKEN & BACKEN 2/6/25 S:\2022\202245 - The Estate Yountville\1-Drawings\01-Current\RESTAURANT\01_Sheet Files\AR2.2 Ground Floor Plan.dwg Plot Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project No.
Date 6539 WASHINGTON STREET YOUNTVILLE, CA 94599 ESTATE YOUNTVILLE -202245 RESTAURANT
SCALE :
-
1 AR2.2
PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN AR2.3
ROOF PLAN
SHEET NOTES
TRUE NORTH
DRAWING NORTH
0 1' 8' 16'
1. TRANSLUCENT CORRUGATED ROOFING
2. CLASS "A" ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOFING
3. TPO ROOFING
4. TEMPERED GLASS AWNING
0 SEE SHEET SN1 FOR SHEARWALL SCHEDULE, HOLDOWN LEGEND AND ALL OTHER STRUCTURAL SPECIFICATIONS CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO ORDERING OR FABRICATING MATERIALS WALL LEGEND (N) 2x6 WALL (N) 2x10 WALL (E) BRICK WALL 13" ± WIDE MAIN DINING ROOM BAR KITCHEN SUNROOM HALL 1 HALL 2 MIXED GENDER BATHROOM MEAT AGING WALK-IN WALK-IN COOLER DRY STORAGE EMPLOYEE BATHROOM PREP VESTIBULE 2'-4" 14'-5
1 2" 6'-6" 14'-6
1 2" 2'-4
1 2" 4'-3
1 2" 19'-1" 4'-3
1 2" 27'-7
1 2"
40'-2" 42'-7
1 2"
25'-1"
65'-3" 70'-3" 1 2
3 4
ABC (N) TIMBER FRAMED WALL w/ BRICK VENEER BOTH SIDES. REMOVE ADDITIONAL BRICK AS NEEDED TO BEAR NEW LOWER ROOF FRAMING ON TIMBER WALL REMOVE ADDITIONAL BRICK AS NEEDED TO BEAR NEW LOWER ROOF FRAMING ON TIMBER WALL (N) 2x10 TIMBER FRAMED WALL TO ACCOMMODATE MOMENT FRAME 17'-10" HARDY FRAME SMF HFSMF-2411181 SEE SHEETS HFMF1-HFMF3 ALL STRUCTURAL WORK IS LIMITED TO THIS AREA OF THE BUILDING SEE FRAMING ELEVATION ON SHEET SD1 6x PTDF POST AGAINST (E) BRICK WALL w/ 3 4" DIA BENT ANCHORS @ 32" OC w/ ET-3G EPOXY AND MESH SCREEN TUBE INSERTS, PER D2 SD1 6x PTDF POST AGAINST (E) BRICK WALL w/ 34" DIA BENT ANCHORS @ 32" OC w/ ET-3G EPOXY AND MESH SCREEN TUBE INSERTS, PER D2 SD1 01.10.25 (530) 672-1600 SHEET #: REVISIONS C:\Users\Ben\Desktop\Work Folder\2024\Yountville_Restaurant_322\PHASE 2\2_Structurals\Yountville_Restaurant_Phase 2_322.dwg 1/10/2025 9:56:46 AM BEN (BEN)
STRUCTURAL FLOOR PLAN
6539 WASHINGTON STREET
YOUNTVILLE, CA 94599
ESTATE YOUNTVILLE RESTAURANT S1.0 STRUCTURAL FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO ORDERING OR FABRICATING MATERIALS TYPICAL HEADER U.O.N. 6x8 DF#1 w/ 2x TRIMMERS. USE DBL 2x TRIMMERS EA SIDE FOR HEADERS SPANNING > 5'-0" 1 2 3 4
ABC (N) 12"W x 24"D FTG. w/ (2) #5 TOP & (2) #5 BOTTOM, U.O.N. (4) #4 x 36" DOWELS (2 TOP, 2 BOTTOM) INTO (E) FOOTING. EMBED 4" MIN w/ SET-3G EPOXY AND TIE INTO (N) FOOTING REINFORCEMENT, PER (4) #4 x 36" DOWELS (2 TOP, 2 BOTTOM) INTO (E) FOOTING. EMBED 4" MIN w/ SET-3G EPOXY AND TIE INTO (N) FOOTING REINFORCEMENT. (N) 24"W x 24"D FTG. w/ (2) #5 TOP & (2) #5 BOTTOM, U.O.N. (N) 24"W x 24"D FTG. w/ (2) #5 TOP & (2) #5 BOTTOM, U.O.N. (E) FTG. (E) FTG. (E) RAISED FLOOR FRAMING TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. HARDY FRAME SMF HFSMF-2411181 SEE SHEETS HFMF1 - HFMF3 AND DETAIL F6/SD3 FOR CONCRETE GRADE BEAM OVER FOOTING AT MOMENT FRAMES 4'-6" 18'-8" 4'-0" 6" (N) 36"SQ x 24"D FTG. w/ (4) #4 EACH WAY, 3" CLR FROM BOTTOM (N) 36"SQ x 24"D FTG. w/ (4) #4 EACH WAY, 3" CLR FROM BOTTOM (E) FTG. 13'-9
1 2" 20'-4" 2'-4
1 2" 25'-1"
1'-4"
2'-4" 60"SQ x 24"D FTG. w/ #4 @ 12" O.C. BOTH WAYS, TOP AND BOTTOM, TYP. EACH SIDE OF MOMENT FRAME 60"SQ x 24"D FTG. w/ #4 @ 12" O.C. BOTH WAYS, TOP & BOTTOM, TYP. EACH SIDE OF MOMENT FRAME F1 SD3 F3 SD3 F4 SD3 F5 SD3 F2 SD3 F6 SD3 F6 SD3 01.10.25 (530) 672-1600 SHEET #: REVISIONS C:\Users\Ben\Desktop\Work Folder\2024\Yountville_Restaurant_322\PHASE 2\2_Structurals\Yountville_Restaurant_Phase 2_322.dwg 1/10/2025 9:56:46 AM BEN (BEN) 6539 WASHINGTON STREET
FOUNDATION PLAN
YOUNTVILLE, CA 94599
ESTATE YOUNTVILLE RESTAURANT S2.0 FOUNDATION PLAN SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO ORDERING OR FABRICATING MATERIALS WALL LEGEND (N) 2x6 WALL (N) 2x10 WALL (E) BRICK WALL 13" ± WIDE TYPICAL HEADER U.O.N. 6x8 DF#1 w/ 2x TRIMMERS. USE DBL 2x TRIMMERS EA SIDE FOR HEADERS SPANNING > 5'-0" 1 2 3 4
ABC
(E) ROOF FRAMING TO REMAIN UNCHANGED
(E) ROOF FRAMING TO REMAIN UNCHANGED.
(E) ROOF FRAMING TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. 6x10 POST IN WALL AT RAFTER IN THIS WALL 6x6 POST IN WALL 6x6 POST IN WALL 6x10 POST IN WALL AT RAFTER IN THIS WALL DBL 2x10 TRIMMERS & DBL 2x10 KING STUDS DBL 2x10 TRIMMERS & DBL 2x10 KING STUDS (N) 3 1 2" x 11 7
8" LVL BEAM (N) 5 1
4" x 11 7
8" LVL BEAM (N) 5 1
4" x 11 7
8" LVL HEADER w/ DBL 2x TRIMMERS & DBL 2x KING STUDS (N) W10x33 STEEL HEADER (N) HSS8x4x 1 2 POST w/ 2x SIDE NAILER (N) HSS8x4x
1 2 POST w/ 2x SIDE NAILER SEE FRAMING ELEVATION ON SHEET SD1 (N) 5 1
4" x 9 1
2" LVL RAFTERS @ 7'-0" O.C. w/ 3x10 DF#1 KD COLLAR TIES EA. SIDE (SEE ROOF FRAMING SECTION ON SHEET SD2 FOR CONNECTION DETAILS) SEE ROOF FRAMING CROSS SECTION ON SHEET SD2 01.10.25 (530) 672-1600 SHEET #: REVISIONS C:\Users\Ben\Desktop\Work Folder\2024\Yountville_Restaurant_322\PHASE 2\2_Structurals\Yountville_Restaurant_Phase 2_322.dwg 1/10/2025 9:56:46 AM BEN (BEN) 6539 WASHINGTON STREET
LOWER ROOF FRAMING PLAN
YOUNTVILLE, CA 94599
ESTATE YOUNTVILLE RESTAURANT S3.0 LOWER ROOF FRAMING PLAN SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO ORDERING OR FABRICATING MATERIALS WALL LEGEND (N) 2x6 WALL (N) 2x10 WALL (E) BRICK WALL 13" ± WIDE TYPICAL HEADER U.O.N. 6x8 DF#1 w/ 2x TRIMMERS. USE DBL 2x TRIMMERS EA SIDE FOR HEADERS SPANNING > 5'-0" 1 2 AB 3x6 RAFTERS @ 24" O.C. w/ LU26 OR EQUAL WHERE SHOWN. 3x6 RAFTERS @ 24" O.C. w/ LU26 OR EQUAL WHERE SHOWN. 3x6 RAFTERS @ 24" O.C. w/ LU26 OR EQUAL WHERE SHOWN. 3x6 RAFTERS @ 24" O.C. w/ LU26 OR EQUAL WHERE SHOWN. 4x6 DF#1 KD JOISTS CONNECT TO PURLINS w/ CJT3Z, TYP. 4x6 DF#1 KD EXPOSED PURLINS (6) TOTAL, TO SUPPORT CORRUGATED ROOF PANELS. 4x6 DF#1 KD JOISTS CONNECT TO PURLINS w/ CJT3Z, TYP. SEE FRAMING ELEVATION ON SHEET SD1 1 2 AB
1 2" STRUCT 1 PLYWOOD w/ 10D @ 3" O.C. EDGE NAILING TO 3x ROOF FRAMING MEMBERS 1 2" STRUCT 1 PLYWOOD w/ 10D @ 3" O.C. EDGE NAILING TO 3x ROOF FRAMING MEMBERS CONTINUOUS CMST COIL STRAP w/ 10D x 1 1 2" NAILS @ 4 1
2" MAX O.C. 01.10.25 (530) 672-1600 SHEET #: REVISIONS C:\Users\Ben\Desktop\Work Folder\2024\Yountville_Restaurant_322\PHASE 2\2_Structurals\Yountville_Restaurant_Phase 2_322.dwg 1/10/2025 9:56:46 AM BEN (BEN) 6539 WASHINGTON STREET
UPPER ROOF FRAMING & ROOF DIAPHRAGM NAILING PLAN
YOUNTVILLE, CA 94599
ESTATE YOUNTVILLE RESTAURANT S3.1 UPPER ROOF FRAMING PLAN SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" ROOF DIAPHRAGM NAILING PLAN SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" (E) BRICK WALL 3x NAILER 3x NAILER 2x TOP & BOT. NAILER DBL TOP PLATE 4x6 PURLINS PER PLANROOF SHTG. PER PLAN 2x8 DF#2 @ 16" O.C. w/ 1
2" CDX BOTH SIDES HSS8x4x
1 2 HSS8x4x STEEL POST
1 2 STEEL POST (E) BRICK WALL 2x8 DF#2 @ 16"O.C. w/ 1
2" CDX BOTH SIDES DBL TOP PLATE 3x PTDF SILL PLATE w/ 3 4" DIA ANCHORS @ 32" MAX OC DRILLED & EPOXIED INTO EXISTING MASONRY, w/ 12" EMBED USE ET-3G EPOXY w/ MESH SCREEN TUBE INSERTS TO CONTAIN EPOXY, TYP. PROVIDE 3" SQ. x 1 4" THK. PLATE WASHERS, TYP. 2x8 DF#2 @ 16"O.C. w/ 1
2" CDX BOTH SIDES
AA UPPER ROOF FRAMING D4 SD1 D4 SD1 D3 SD1 17'-10" 3x PTDF SILL PLATE w/ 3 4" DIA ANCHORS @ 32" MAX OC DRILLED & EPOXIED INTO EXISTING MASONRY, w/ 12" EMBED USE ET-3G EPOXY w/ MESH SCREEN TUBE INSERTS TO CONTAIN EPOXY, TYP. PROVIDE 3" SQ. x 1 4" THK. PLATE WASHERS, TYP. CONNECT RAFTER TO WALL TOP PLATE w/ A35 @ 24" O.C. D3 SD1 3 4" Ø BENT ANCHORS @ 32" O.C. w/ ET-3G EPOXY & MESH SCREEN TUBE INSERTS. PROVIDE 3" MAX Ø HAND HOLE ON OUTSIDE FACE FOR INSTALLATION OF NUT & WASHER PER D1 SD1 W10x33 2x BOTTOM NAILER WF BEAM PER PLAN 2x TOP NAILER 2x TIMBER WALL w/ 1 2" CDX BOTH SIDES NAILED w/ 10D @ 6/12 BRICK VENEER BRICK VENEER DBL TOP PLATE ROOF SHTG. PER PLAN UPPER ROOF FRAMING PER PLAN ANGLE BRACKET WELDED TO W.F. BEAM TO SUPPORT BRICK VENEER. A35 AND BLOCKING PER FRAMING ELEVATION SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EAVE/FASCIA, TYP. D1 HSS POST TO (E) MASONRY WALL CONNECTION NO SCALE HSS POST PER PLAN 3 4" Ø BENT ANCHORS @ 32" O.C. w/ ET-3G EPOXY AND MESH SCREEN TUBE INSERTS. PROVIDE 3" MAX Ø HAND HOLE ON OUTSIDE FACE FOR INSTALLATION OF NUT AND WASHER. NAILER PER PLAN (E) MASONRY WALL 3" MAX 12" MIN. TYP. D2 6x POST TO (E) MASONRY WALL CONNECTION NO SCALE 6x POST PER PLAN 3 4" Ø BENT ANCHORS @ 32" O.C. w/ ET-3G EPOXY AND MESH SCREEN TUBE INSERTS. (E) MASONRY WALL 12" MIN. TYP. D3 HSS POST TO TOP PLATE CONNECTION NO SCALE HSS POST PER PLAN NAILER PER PLAN 12"x7"x 1 4" PLATE SDS
1 4 x3 1
2" SCREWS (6) EACH SIDE, (12) TOTAL. 1/4 DBL TOP PLATE UPPER ROOF FRAMING PER PLAN ROOF SHTG. PER PLAN 12" HSS8x4x 1 2" POST
7"
2" 2"
1 1
2" 1
1 2" 1
1 4" CAP PLATE 1/4
1 2" 2
1 2"1
1 2"1
1 2" 4"1
1 2" BEAM PER PLAN BOTTOM NAILER PER PLAN TOP NAILER PER PLAN DBL TOP PLATE 2x8 CRIPPLE STUDS @ 16" O.C. HSS POST PER PLAN PL7x4 1 2x
3 8 THICK SHEAR TAB (ASTM A36) w/ (2) 3
4" A325 BOLTS
1 4
1 4 STEEL BEAM SHEAR TAB DETAIL D4 NO SCALE 01.10.25 (530) 672-1600 SHEET #: REVISIONS C:\Users\Ben\Desktop\Work Folder\2024\Yountville_Restaurant_322\PHASE 2\2_Structurals\Yountville_Restaurant_Phase 2_322.dwg 1/10/2025 9:56:46 AM BEN (BEN) 6539 WASHINGTON STREET
STRUCTURAL DETAILS
YOUNTVILLE, CA 94599
ESTATE YOUNTVILLE RESTAURANT SD1 FRAMING ELEVATION AT WALL LINE 'A' SCALE 1/2" = 1'-0" FRAMING ELEVATION - SECTION A-A SCALE 1/2" = 1'-0" RAKED 2x6 TIMBER PIN UP WALL o/ 2x10 WALL TO (E) UPPER ROOF DIAPHRAGM R1 SD2 1 2" ROOF SHTG. 3x6 RAFTERS @ 24" O.C. BEVEL-CUT o/ WALL TOP PLATE, TYP. POCKET RAFTER IN WALL w/ 6x6 POST AT BEAM POCKET. STRAP ACROSS BREAK IN WALL TOP PLATE w/ MST48, TYP. 4x6 DF#1 KD EXPOSED PURLINS TO SUPPORT CORRUGATED ROOF PANELS (UPPER ROOF) 4x6 DF#1 KD EXPOSED PURLINS TO SUPPORT CORRUGATED ROOF PANELS (UPPER ROOF) 4x6 DF#1 KD EXPOSED PURLINS TO SUPPORT CORRUGATED ROOF PANELS (UPPER ROOF) CONNECT 4x6 DF#1 KD JOISTS TO PURLIN w/ CJT3Z, TYP. 4x6 DF#1 KD JOISTS (UPPER ROOF) 4x6 DF#1 KD JOISTS (UPPER ROOF) 4x6 DF#1 KD JOISTS (UPPER ROOF) 4x6 DF#1 KD JOISTS LU26 OR EQUAL (UPPER ROOF) RAFTER TO PURLIN, TYP. LU26 OR EQUAL RAFTER TO PURLIN, TYP. CONNECT 3x BLOCK TO RAFTERS AT MITERED CORNER w/ CJT EA. END, TYP. 3x10 DF#1 KD COLLAR TIES EACH SIDE 5 1 4" x 9 1
2" LVL RAFTERS (LOWER ROOF) 1
2" ROOF SHEATHING o/ 3x6 RAFTERS ONLY 3x6 RAFTERS @ 24" O.C. BIRDSMOUTHED o/ WALL TOP PLATE BEVELED 2x BLOCKING BETWEEN RAFTERS, TYP. 3 4" T&G EXPOSED BENEATH RAFTERS, ABOVE DROPPED RAFTERS/COLLAR TIES POCKET RAFTER IN WALL w/ 6x6 POST AT BEAM POCKET. STRAP ACROSS BREAK IN WALL TOP PLATE w/ MST48, TYP. H2.5 OR EQUAL RAFTER TO WALL TOP PLATE 2x6 WALL FRAMING w/ 1 2" CDX BOTH SIDES BENEATH THIN BRICK VENEER (4) 3
4" DIA. THRU BOLTS E.N. PROVIDE 2x BLOCKING @ 24" O.C. LS70 @ 12" O.C. RAFTER TO WALL TOP PLATERAFTER POCKETS INTO WALL w/ FLAT CUT ON BOTTOM TO BEAR ON 6x POST. 6x POST IN WALL AT ROOF TRUSS BEARING LOCATIONS, TYP. BEVELED 3x BLOCKING BETWEEN RAFTERS A35 @ 12" O.C. BLOCKING TO WALL TOP PLATE PROVIDE 3" BEARING OF UPPER ROOF RAFTERS ON 2x10 WALL RAISED FLOOR FRAMING & SHEAR TRANSFER NOT SHOWN A35 @ 12" O.C. BLOCKING TO WALL TOP PLATE RAISED FLOOR FRAMING & SHEAR TRANSFER NOT SHOWN E.N. E.N. 1 2" OSB OR PLYWOOD w/ 10D @ 4/12 BOTH SIDES SEE ARCHITECTURAL ROOF PLAN FOR CRICKET REQUIRED. SHEAR TRANSFER AT PIN UP WALL R1 NO SCALE 5 1 4" x 9 1
2" LVL RAFTER PER PLAN (LOWER ROOF) 3x6 RAFTER PER PLAN 3 4" T&G PER PLAN
1 2" ROOF SHTG. PER PLAN A35 @ 12" O.C. BLOCKING TO WALL TOP PLATE E.N. PROVIDE 3" MIN. BEARING OF UPPER ROOF RAFTERS ON 2x10 WALL SDWS 0.220 x 4 1 2" SCREWS @ 8" O.C., STAGGERED, SOLE PLATE OF UPPER WALL TO TOP PLATE BELOW. E.N. BEVELED 3x BLOCKING BETWEEN RAFTERS RAFTER POCKETS INTO WALL w/ FLAT CUT ON BOTTOM TO BEAR ON 6x POST. POCKET RAFTER IN WALL w/ 6x6 POST AT BEAM POCKET. STRAP ACROSS BREAK IN WALL TOP PLATE w/ MST48, TYP. RAKED 2x6 TIMBER PIN UP WALL o/ 2x10 WALL 1 2" OSB OR PLYWOOD w/ 10D @ 4/12 BOTH SIDES 01.10.25 (530) 672-1600 SHEET #: REVISIONS C:\Users\Ben\Desktop\Work Folder\2024\Yountville_Restaurant_322\PHASE 2\2_Structurals\Yountville_Restaurant_Phase 2_322.dwg 1/10/2025 9:56:46 AM BEN (BEN) 6539 WASHINGTON STREET
STRUCTURAL DETAILS
YOUNTVILLE, CA 94599
ESTATE YOUNTVILLE RESTAURANT SD2 ROOF FRAMING CROSS SECTION SCALE 1/2" = 1'-0" F1 (N) PERIMETER FOOTING NO SCALE WIDTH PER PLAN
DEPTH
PER PLAN THIN BRICK VENEER. PER ARCHITECTURAL SHEETS (E) FLOOR FRAMING REBAR PER PLAN 8" STEM WALL 5 8" x 10" A.B. @ 6'-0" O.C., UON. PROVIDE 3"x3"x
1 4" SQUARE PLATE WASHERS
3" CLR. (N) 2x STUDS @ 16" MAX. O.C. w/ 1
2" CDX EA. SIDE NAILED w/ 10D @ 6/12, UON (N) FTG. PER PLAN E.N. SEE ARCHITECTURAL SHEETS FOR FINISHED FLOOR MATERIAL AND FLASHING (N) WOOD FLOOR PER 10d @ 6" O.C. ARCHITECTURAL SHEETS E.N. PT LEDGER TO (N) CONCRETE STEM WALL w/ (2) 5 8" ANCHORS @ 16" O.C. HANG (E) JOISTS TO LEDGER w/ LU HANGER OR EQUAL. #4 @ 18" MAX O.C. HORIZONTALLY & VERTICALLY TYP. FOOTING @ RAISED FLOOR F2 NO SCALE WIDTH PER PLAN DEPTH
PER PLAN (E) FLOOR FRAMING REBAR PER PLAN 8" CURB
3" CLR. (N) FTG. PER PLAN SEE ARCHITECTURAL SHEETS FOR FINISHED FLOOR MATERIAL AND FLASHING (N) WOOD FLOOR PER ARCHITECTURAL SHEETS PROVIDE BITUTHANE OR OTHER WATERPROOFING BETWEEN CONCRETE AND WOODPT LEDGER TO (N) CONCRETE STEM WALL w/ (2) 5 8" ANCHORS @ 16" OC HANG (E) JOISTS TO LEDGER w/ LU HANGER OR EQUAL #4 @ 18" MAX OC VERTICALLY & HORIZONTALLY, TYP. (E) FLOOR JOISTS P.T. SILL PIN UP WALL 2x BLOCKING F3 INTERIOR FOOTING DETAIL NO SCALE A35 @ 32" MAX OC 5 8" x 10" A.B. @ 4'-0" O.C., UON. PROVIDE 3"x3"x
1 4" SQUARE PLATE WASHERS WIDTH PER PLAN
DEPTH
PER PLAN
3" CLR. 10" STEM WALL (N) 2x10 WALL REBAR PER PLAN #4 @ 18" MAX OC VERTICALLY & HORIZONTALLY, TYP. 3 8" MIN OSB OR PLYWOOD w/ 8D @ 6/12, UON
3 8" MIN OSB OR PLYWOOD w/ 8D @ 6/12, UON 16D @ 10" OC F4 (N) FOOTING FROM RETAINING WALL NO SCALE 45° BOTTOM OF (N) FOOTING SHALL BE BELOW AN IMAGINARY 45° LINE OF PROJECTION FROM BOTTOM OF (E) RETAINING WALL FOOTING (E) RETAINING WALL FOOTING (N) FOOTING F5 DOWEL (N) FOOTING INTO (E) FOOTING NO SCALE (E) FTG (N) FTG REBAR PER PLAN (4) #4 DOWELS (2 TOP, 2 BOT.) PER PLAN 4" MIN. (E) FTG (N) FTGREBAR PER PLAN NEW (E)4" MIN. LAP DOWELS w/ (N) FTG REIN. PLAN VIEW PLAN VIEW LAP DOWELS w/ (N) FTG REIN. (4) #4 DOWELS (2 TOP, 2 BOT.) PER PLAN 2"
2 7
8" #4 STIRRUPS @ 4" OC (7) #6 EVENLY SPACED (7) #6 EVENLY SPACED 24" 24" 3" CLR 135° BENDS HARDY MOMENT FRAME SPREAD FOOTING PER PLAN REINFORCEMENT NOT SHOWN HARDY MOMENT FRAME TYPICAL STRIP SPREAD FOOTING PER PLAN FOOTING- REINFORCEMENT NOT SHOWN #4 STIRRUPS @ 4" OC (7) #6 EVENLY SPACED TOP & BOT 9" 12" 12" GRADE BEAM EXTENSION PAST COLUMN W14x53 MITEK COLUMN 1 4 TYP. REBAR TO FLANGE W14x53 COLUMN 90° STD HOOK #4 STIRRUPS @ 4" OC (7) #6 EVENLY SPACED (7) #6 EVENLY SPACED F6 GRADE BEAM AT MITEK MOMENT FRAME COLUMN NO SCALE W14x53 MITEK COLUMN PLAN VIEW ELEVATION VIEW SECTION VIEW TYPICAL STRIP FOOTING- REINFORCEMENT NOT SHOWN SEE SHEET HFMF3 FOR STIRRUPS REQUIRED IN FOOTING BENEATH GRADE BEAM AT COLUMN ANCHORAGE LOCATIONS UNDISTURBED GRADE SEE SHEETS HFMF2 & HFMF3 FOR COLUMN BASE PLATE & ANCHORAGE SEE SHEET HFMF3 FOR STIRRUPS REQUIRED IN FOOTING BENEATH GRADE BEAM AT COLUMN ANCHORAGE LOCATIONS 01.10.25 (530) 672-1600 SHEET #: REVISIONS C:\Users\Ben\Desktop\Work Folder\2024\Yountville_Restaurant_322\PHASE 2\2_Structurals\Yountville_Restaurant_Phase 2_322.dwg 1/10/2025 9:56:46 AM BEN (BEN) 6539 WASHINGTON STREET
STRUCTURAL DETAILS
YOUNTVILLE, CA 94599
ESTATE YOUNTVILLE RESTAURANT SD3
DEMOLITION 1. SAFETY NOTES: A) IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO COMPLY WITH THE PERTINENT SECTIONS, AS THEY APPLY TO THIS PROJECT, OF THE "CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS" ISSUED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, LATEST EDITION, AND ALL OSHA REQUIREMENTS. B) THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AND OWNER DO NOT ACCEPT ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONTRACTOR'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS. 2. SHORE OR BRACE TRUSSES, BEAMS COLUMNS AND WALL AS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THE STABLE INTEGRITY OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE PRIOR TO DEMOLITION. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO DESIGN AND PROVIDE COMPETENT SHORING AND BRACING FOR ALL LOADS IMPOSED DURING AND AFTER DEMOLITION THROUGH COMPLETION OF NEW CONSTRUCTION. 3. ALL DIMENSIONS GIVEN TO AND OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE ARE APPROXIMATE. VERIFY BY FIELD MEASUREMENTS THE DIMENSIONS OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. WHERE ACTUAL CONDITIONS DEVIATE FROM THE DETAILS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS, NOTIFY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER FOR INSTRUCTIONS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH WORK. 4. DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE MADE IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO AVOID OR MINIMIZE DAMAGE TO ADJACENT CONSTRUCTION. 5. EXTENT OF DEMOLITION IS TO BE AS INDICATED ON PLANS, SECTIONS AND DETAILS. DEMOLITION IS TO INCLUDE REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL CONSTRUCTION. GENERAL 1. CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND REGULATIONS. 2. SHOP DRAWING NOTE: A) SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN THE FORM OF ELECTRONIC OR HARD COPIES OF EACH SHEET. B) THE PURPOSE OF SHOP DRAWING SUBMITTALS BY THE CONTRACTOR IS TO DEMONSTRATE TO THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THE DESIGN CONCEPT BY INDICATING WHICH MATERIALS THEY INTEND TO FURNISH AND INSTALL, AND BY DETAILING THE FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION METHODS THEY INTEND TO USE. C) PRIOR TO FABRICATION, SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW TO THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. SHOP DRAWING SUBMITTALS SHALL INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT NECESSARILY LIMITED TO STRUCTURAL STEEL, AND PRE-FABRICATED WOOD ROOF FRAMING ITEMS SUCH AS TRUSSES. D) PRIOR TO SUBMISSION THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW ALL SUBMITTALS FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND SHALL STAMP SUBMITTALS AS BEING "REVIEWED FOR CONFORMANCE." E) SHOP DRAWING SUBMITTALS PROCESSED BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ARE NOT CHANGE ORDERS. F) ANY DETAIL ON THE SHOP DRAWING THAT DEVIATES FROM THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS SHALL CLEARLY BE MARKED WITH THE NOTE "THIS IS A CHANGE" G) SHOP DRAWINGS OR CALCULATIONS SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW THAT REQUIRE RESUBMITTAL FOR RE-REVIEW SHALL BE BILLED HOURLY FOR SUCH TIME TO THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. RE-REVIEW WILL NOT PROCEED WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR FOR ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING REVIEW SERVICES. 3. SAFETY NOTE: A) IT IS THE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO COMPLY WITH THE PERTINENT SECTIONS. AS THEY APPLY TO THIS PROJECT, OF THE "CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS" ISSUED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LATEST EDITION, AND ALL OSHA REQUIREMENTS. B)THE OWNER AND THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DO NOT ACCEPT ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONTRACTOR'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS. C)THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ADEQUATE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF ALL FORMS AND SHORING REQUIRED. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEER WHERE A CONFLICT OR A DISCREPANCY OCCURS BETWEEN THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS AND ANY OTHER PORTION OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS OR EXISTING FIELD CONDITIONS. SUCH NOTIFICATION SHALL BE GIVEN IN DUE TIME SO AS NOT TO AFFECT THE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE. IN CASE OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, THE MORE RESTRICTIVE SHALL GOVERN. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS WITH ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY WORK. 5. WHERE NO SPECIFIC DETAIL IS SHOWN, THE CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR TO THAT INDICATED FOR LIKE CASES OF CONSTRUCTION ON THIS PROJECT. SHOULD THERE BE ANY QUESTION, CONTACT THE ARCHITECT AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PRIOR TO PROCEEDING. 6. WHEN CONSTRUCTION ATTACHES TO AN EXISTING BUILDING, A COMPLETE SET OF DRAWINGS OF THE EXISTING BUILDING SHALL BE KEPT ON THE JOB SITE. CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN THESE DRAWINGS FROM THE OWNER. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AN ALLOWANCE EQUAL TO 2% OF THE BID FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL, MISC. IRON AND REINFORCING STEEL TO BE USED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. UNUSED AMOUNT TO REVERT TO THE OWNER UPON COMPLETION OF THE JOB. 8. ANY SUBSTITUTIONS FOR STRUCTURAL MEMBERS, HARDWARE, OR DETAILS SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE ARCHITECT AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. SUCH REVIEW WILL BE BILLED ON A TIME AND MATERIALS BASIS TO THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR WITH NO GUARANTEE THAT THE SUBSTITUTION WILL BE ALLOWED. 9. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. CONTACT THE ARCHITECT OR STRUCTURAL ENGINEER FOR ANY DIMENSIONS NOT SHOWN. 10. THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT COMPLETE UNTIL REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED BY LOCAL BUILDING OFFICIALS AND APPROVED BY THE OWNER. 11. ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTES THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. 12. THE STRUCTURE SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS IS STRUCTURALLY SOUND ONLY IN ITS COMPLETED FORM. THE STABILITY OF THIS STRUCTURE DEPENDS ON THE DIAPHRAGMS AND THE BRACING MEMBERS SHOWN. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF SHORING FOR ALL EARTH FORMS, CONCRETE, STEEL, WOOD, AND MASONRY TO RESIST GRAVITY, EARTH, WIND, SEISMIC, AND CONSTRUCTION LOADS. SHORING SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL ALL DIAPHRAGMS AND LATERAL RESISTING ELEMENTS ARE IN PLACE IN THE ENTIRETY. DESIGN CRITERIA 1. THESE CODES/STANDARDS APPLY: 2022 CBC 2022 CRC 2022 CPC 2022 CMC 2022 CEC 2022 CEBC 2022 IEBC 2022 CBEES 2022 CGBSC, EXCEPT PART 11, TITLE 24 2. DESIGN LIVE LOADS: AREA LIVE LOAD ROOF 20 PSF 3. EARTHQUAKE DESIGN LOADS: SIMPLIFIED EQUIVALENT LATERAL FORCE PROCEDURE RISK CATEGORY II, SITE CLASS "D" SS= 1.866g SDS= 1.180gS1= 0.670g SD1= 0.986g SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY = D IE= 1.0 R= 1.5 (EXISTING UNREINFORCED MASONRY) 4. WIND DESIGN LOAD: SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE V= 95 MPH EXPOSURE = B FOUNDATIONS 1. FOUNDATION DESIGN IS BASED ON GEOTECHNICAL STUDY REPORT BY RGH CONSULTANTS, PROJECT NO. 7767.01.04.2 DATED DEC 22, 2023. 2. FOUNDATION DEPTHS INDICATED ON PLANS ARE MINIMUMS. 3. WHEN STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION IS REQUIRED, STRUCTURAL ENGINEER SHALL OBSERVE FOOTING REINFORCING STEEL PRIOR TO CONCRETE PLACEMENT. PROVIDE 48 HOURS NOTICE TO STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONCRETE PLACEMENT. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL EXCAVATION PROCEDURES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LAGGING, SHORING AND PROTECTING OF ADJACENT PROPERTY, STRUCTURES, STREETS, AND UTILITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT. 5. FOUNDATION TYPE: CONVENTIONAL SPREAD FOOTINGS DESIGN VALUES: ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURES DL + LL 3000 psf CONCRETE 1. STRUCTURAL CONCRETE SHALL ATTAIN 28-DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AS REQUIRED IN NOTE #18 2. ALL CONCRETE MIX SHALL BE READY-MIX IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM-C94. 3. CEMENT SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM C-150 TYPE I OR II. 4. WATER SHALL BE CLEAN AND FREE FROM OILS, ACIDS, ALKALIS, SALTS. ORGANIC MATERIALS OR OTHER SUBSTANCES DELETERIOUS TO CONCRETE OR REINFORCEMENT. 5. CONCRETE AGGREGATES SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM C-33. AGGREGATES FOR LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM C-330. 6. REINFORCING STEEL SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A615-GRADE 60 FOR #5 AND LARGER, AND ASTM A615-GRADE 40 FOR #4 AND SMALLER, EXCEPT REINFORCING STEEL TO BE WELDED SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A706. 7. WELDED WIRE FABRIC SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A-185. 8. REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE FABRICATED ACCORDING TO "MANUAL OF STANDARD PRACTICE FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION". 9. ALL PREHEATING AND WELDING OF REINFORCING BARS SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWS D1.4 LATEST EDITION AND SHALL BE CONTINUOUSLY INSPECTED BY A QUALIFIED TESTING LABORATORY. CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH REBAR MILL CERTIFICATES TO THE TESTING LABORATORY. 10. MINIMUM CLEAR CONCRETE COVER FOR REINFORCING SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE: CAST AGAINST EARTH = 3" TILT-UP PANELS CAST ON SLAB CAST IN FORMS AND EXPOSED TO WEATHER EXPOSED TO EARTH OR WEATHER #8 & SMALLER = 1 1 2" #6 & LARGER = 2" #9 & LARGER = 2" #5 & SMALLER = 1 1 2" NOT EXPOSED TO EARTH OR WEATHER SLAB, WALLS, JOISTS = 1 1 2" BEAMS, COLUMNS, GIRDERS = 1
1 2" 11. ALL REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE CONTINUOUS. STAGGER SPLICES WHERE POSSIBLE. LAP SPLICES SHALL BE PER THE TYPICAL DETAILS, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 12. PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION JOINTS AS INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS. CONCRETE SURFACE AT CONSTRUCTION JOINTS SHALL BE THOROUGHLY CLEANED AND LAITANCE REMOVED. WHERE INDICATED ON DRAWINGS ROUGHEN CONCRETE SURFACE TO 1 4" AMPLITUDE. 13. PIPES AND ELECTRICAL CONDUITS SHALL NOT BE EMBEDDED IN STRUCTURAL CONCRETE OR CONCRETE FILL OVER METAL DECKING EXCEPT WHERE SPECIFICALLY APPROVED BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. 14. REINFORCING, DOWELS, BOLTS, ANCHORS,, SLEEVES, ETC., TO BE EMBEDDED IN CONCRETE SHALL BE SECURELY POSITIONED IN FORMS BEFORE PLACING CONCRETE. 15. MAXIMUM FREE FALL OF CONCRETE SHALL BE 6'-0". 16. ALL CONCRETE AND "NON-METALLIC" GROUT SHALL BE THOROUGHLY CONSOLIDATED BY SUITABLE MEANS AND THOROUGHLY WORKED AROUND REINFORCEMENT, EMBEDDED ITEMS AND INTO CORNERS OF FORMS. 17. PLACE NON-SHRINK GROUT UNDER BASE PLATES, SILL PLATES, ETC AS INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS. NON-SHRINK GROUT SHALL BE MASTERFLOW 928 GROUT BY MASTER BUILDERS TECHNOLOGIES OR APPROVED EQUAL WITH A MINIMUM f'c OF 750 psi @ 28 DAYS. 18. CONCRETE STRENGTHS: MAX AGGREGATE WATER TO CLASS USE f'c @ 28 DAYS SIZE WEIGHT CEMENT RATIO A FOUNDATIONS 3000 psi 3 4" 145 0.5-0.6 STRUCTURAL STEEL 1. FABRICATION, ERECTION AND MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE AISC SPECIFICATION FOR THE DESIGN, FABRICATION, AND ERECTION OF STRUCTURAL STEEL FOR BUILDING, AND CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, LATEST EDITION. 2. STRUCTURAL STEEL W AND WT SHAPES SHALL CONFORM WITH ASTM A992 STEEL. STRUCTURAL STEEL ANGLES, CHANNELS, MISCELLANEOUS CHANNELS, AND PLATES SHALL CONFORM WITH ASTM A36 STEEL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 3. STEEL PIPE SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A-53, TYPES E OR S, GRADE B. 4. STRUCTURAL STEEL TUBING SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A-500, GRADE C. 5. WELDING SHALL BE DONE BY THE ELECTRIC ARC PROCESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH AMERICAN WELDING SOCIETY STANDARDS, USING ONLY CERTIFIED WELDERS. ALL GROOVE WELDS SHALL BE GROUND. ALL WELDING TO BE DONE USING E70xx ELECTRODES. IN ADDITION, WELDING OF ASTM A572 GRADE 50 STEEL AND ASTM A992 STEEL SHALL BE DONE WITH ELECTRODES CAPABLE OF DEPOSITING WELD METAL WITH A MAXIMUM DIFFUSIBLE HYDROGEN CONTENT OF 16ml/100g (H16). 6. ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL SHALL BE ERECTED PLUMB AND TRUE TO LINE. TEMPORARY BRACING SHALL BE INSTALLED AND SHALL BE LEFT IN PLACE UNTIL OTHER MEANS ARE PROVIDED TO ADEQUATELY BRACE THE STRUCTURE. 7. PLACE NON-SHRINK GROUT UNDER ALL BASE PLATED BEFORE ADDING VERTICAL LOAD. FOR NON-SHRINK GROUT SEE CONCRETE NOTE #18. 8. BOLTED CONNECTIONS SHALL CONSIST OF UNFINISHED BOLTS CONFORMING TO ASTM A-307 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. WHERE HIGH STRENGTH BOLTS ARE INDICATED, BOLTS CONFORMING TO ASTM A325-N SHALL BE PROVIDED (PROVIDE A325-SC BOLTS WHERE INDICATED.) 9. HOLES FOR UNFINISHED BOLTS SHALL BE OF THE SAME NOMINAL DIAMETER OF THE BOLT PLUS 116". USE STANDARD AISC GAGE AND PITCH FOR BOLTS EXCEPT AS NOTED OTHERWISE. 10. HOLES FOR ANCHOR BOLTS EMBEDDED IN CONCRETE SHALL BE OF THE SAME NOMINAL BOLT DIAMETER PLUS 316" UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 11. PROVIDE 1 2" DIAMETER STITCH BOLTS AND RING FILLS, SPACED AT NOT MORE THAN 24"cc FOR ALL DOUBLE ANGLE MEMBERS. 12. AT WOOD TO STEEL PARALLEL CONTACT, BOLT WITH 1 2" DIAMETER BOLTS AT MAXIMUM 24"cc, TYPICAL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 13. ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL SHALL RECEIVE MINIMUM OF ONE SHOP COAT OF RED PRIMER PAINT. DO NOT PAINT AREAS TO BE FIELD WELDED, TO RECEIVE FRICTION TYPE HIGH STRENGTH BOLTS, OR TO BE EMBEDDED IN CONCRETE. 14. STRUCTURAL STEEL BELOW GRADE SHALL HAVE 3" MINIMUM OF CONCRETE COVER. WOOD 1. ALL SAWN LUMBER SHALL BE DOUGLAS FIR-LARCH AS GRADED BY THE WEST COAST LUMBER INSPECTION BUREAU (WCLIB) IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARD GRADING RULES NO. 17 TYPICAL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. ALL MEMBERS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM GRADE OF NO.1 EXCEPT 2x & 4x MEMBERS MAY BE NO. 2. 2. ALL STRUCTURAL SHEATHING USED FOR SHEARWALLS AND ROOF SHEATHING SHALL BE MANUFACTURED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRODUCT STANDARDS OF APA. 3. ALL FOUNDATION PLATED OR SILLS ON CONCRETE SLAB WHICH ARE IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH EARTH, AND PLATES OR SILLS ON CONCRETE OR MASONRY FOUNDATIONS, SHALL BE PRESSURE TREATED. 4. ALL FASTENERS INTO PRESSURE TREATED LUMBER SHALL BE HOT DIPPED GALVANIZED OR STAINLESS STEEL. 5. ALL WOOD SHALL HAVE A MOISTURE CONTENT OF NOT MORE THAN 19% WHEN SHEATHING IS APPLIED. 6. 8" MINIMUM CLEARANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT ALL EXTERIOR WALLS BETWEEN FINISH GRADE AND BOTTOM OF WOOD WALLS. 7. BEARING AND SHEARWALLS SHALL HAVE DOUBLE TOP PLATES LAPPED AT WALL CORNERS AND INTERSECTIONS AND PLATES SHALL BE INTERNAILED WITH 3-16d AT SUCH LOCATIONS. FOR PLATE SPLICE DETAILS, SEE DRAWINGS. 8. SILL PLATE ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH PLATE WASHERS 3x3x0.229" BETWEEN NUT AND PLATE. 9. PROVIDE SOLID BLOCKING BETWEEN JOISTS AND RAFTERS AT ALL SUPPORTS. 10. PROVIDE BLOCKING AT ALL CEILING LEVELS. 11. JOISTS UNDER AND PARALLEL TO PARTITIONS SHALL BE DOUBLED AND NAILED TOGETHER. 12. HOLES FOR BOLTS IN WOOD SHALL BE BORED WITH A BIT OF THE SAME NOMINAL DIAMETER AS THE BOLT PLUS 116". 13. HOLES FOR LAG SCREWS SHALL BE BORED AS FOLLOWS: A) THE CLEARANCE HOLE FOR THE SHANK SHALL HAVE THE SAME DIAMETER AS THE SHANK AND THE SAME DEPTH OF PENETRATION AS THE LENGTH OF UNTHREADED SHANK. B) THE LEAD HOLE FOR THE THREADED PORTION SHALL HAVE A DIAMETER EQUAL TO 60% TO 75% OF THE SHANK DIAMETER AND A LENGTH EQUAL TO AT LEAST THE LENGTH OF THE THREADED PORTION. 14. LAG SCREWS AND WOOD SCREWS SHALL BE SCREWED AND NOT DRIVEN INTO PLACE. SOAP MAY BE USED TO LUBRICATE THE SCREWS. 15. ALL BOLTS AND LAG SCREWS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH METAL WASHERS UNDER HEADS AND NUTS WHICH BEAR ON WOOD. APPLIES ALSO TO INSERTED EXPANDING FASTENERS, RED HEAD, ETC. 16. ALL BOLTS AND LAG SCREWS SHALL BE TIGHTENED AT INSTALLATION AND RETIGHTENED BEFORE CLOSING IN OR AT COMPLETION OF JOB. 17. LAY ALL STRUCTURAL SHEATHING ON ROOF AND FLOORS WITH FACE GRAIN PERPENDICULAR TO SUPPORT TYPICAL UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. USE PLY-CLIPS AT UNSUPPORTED SHEATHING EDGES. 18. CONNECTOR HARDWARE MODEL NUMBER ARE THOSE FOR SIMPSON STRONG-TIE COMPANY. ALL JOIST HANGERS SHALL BE SIMPSON U SERIES UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. EQUIVALENT CONNECTORS WITH ICC ACCEPTANCE MAY BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AS AN ALTERNATE. 19. ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL BE EMBEDDED 7"MIN AND SPREAD AT 6' MAX OC, EXCEPT AS NOTED ALONG SHEARWALLS. 20. EACH PIECE OF SILL PLATE REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 2 BOLTS LOCATED 12" MAX AND 7 BOLT DIAMETERS MIN. FROM EACH END OF THE SILL PLATE. BOLT DIAMETER MI WASHER STEEL WASHER 5 8" Ø 2 3
4" Ø x 516" 2 1
2" x 2 1
2" x 1
4" 3
4" Ø 3" Ø x 716" 3"x3"x 516" 7
8" Ø 3 1
2" Ø x 716" 3 1
2" x 3 1
2" x 3
8" 1" Ø 4" Ø x 1
2" 3 3
4" x 3 3
4" x 3
8" NAILING SCHEDULE 1. ALL NAILS FOR STRUCTURAL WORK SHALL BE COMMON WIRE NAILS CONFORMING TO THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM SIZES: 8d 0.131"Ø x 2 1 2" 10d 0.148"Ø x 3" 10d SHORTS 0.148"Ø x 1 12" PLUS THICKNESS OF SHTG 16d 0.162"Ø x 3 12" 20d 0.192"Ø x 4" 2. PROVIDE NAILS AT CONNECTIONS AS INDICATED ON THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS. WHERE NAILS AT CONNECTIONS ARE NOT INDICATED NAIL PER NAILING SCHEDULE IN NOTE 5. 3. NAILING NOT NOTED IN SCHEDULE OR ON PLANS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF TWO NAILS AT EACH CONTACT. 8d NAILS FOR 1" MATERIAL AND 16d NAILS FOR 2" MATERIAL. 4. HOLES SHALL BE PER-DRILLED WHERE NECESSARY TO PREVENT SPLITTING. 5. NAILING SCHEDULE: CONNECTION NAILING 1. JOIST TO SILL OR GIRDER, TOENAIL 3-8d 2. BRIDGING TO JOIST, TOENAIL EACH END 2-8d 3. 1" x 6" SUBFLOOR OR LESS TO EACH JOIST, FACE NAIL 2-8d 4. WIDER THAN 1" x 6" SUBFLOOR TO EA JOIST, FACE NAIL 2-16d 5. 2" SUBFLOOR TO JOIST OR GIRDER, BLIND AND FACE NAIL 2-16d 6. SOLE PLATE TO JOIST BLOCKING, TYPICAL FACE NAIL SOLE PLATE TO JOIST OR BLOCKING AT SHEAR WALL PANELS 16d AT 16" OC, 3-16d PER 16" 7. TOP PLATE TO STUD, END NAIL 2-16d 8. STUD TO SOLE PLATE 4-8d, TOENAIL OR 2-16d, END NAIL 9.DOUBLE STUDS, FACE NAIL 16d AT 24" OC 10. DOUBLE TOP PLATES, TYPICAL FACE NAIL DOUBLE TOP PLATES, LAP SPLICE 16d AT 16" OC 8-16d 11. BLOCKING BETWEEN JOISTS OR RAFTERS TO TOP PLATE, TOENAIL 3-8d 12. RIM JOIST TO TOP PLATE, TOENAIL 8d AT 6" OC 13. TOP PLATES, LAP AT INTERSECTIONS, FACE NAIL 2-16d 14.BUILT-UP HEADER, FACE NAIL 16d @ 16" O.C. 15. CEILING JOISTS TO PLATE, TOENAIL 3-8d 16. CONTINUOUS HEADER TO STUD, TOENAIL 4-8d 17. CEILING JOISTS, LAPS OVER PARTITIONS, FACE NAIL 3-16d 18. CEILING JOISTS TO PARALLEL RAFTERS, FACE NAIL 3-16d 19. RAFTER TO PLATE, TOENAIL 3-10d 20. 1" BRACE TO EACH STUD AND PLATE, FACE NAIL 2-8d 21. 1" x 6" SHEATHING TO EACH BEARING, FACE NAIL 2-8d 22. WIDER THAN 1" x 8" SHEATHING TO EACH BEARING, FACE NAIL 3-8d 23. BUILT-UP CORNER STUDS. FACE NAIL 16d AT 24"oc 24. BUILT-UP GIRDER AND BEAMS. FACE NAIL 20d AT 32"oc AT TOP & BOTTOM, STAGGERED 2-20d AT ENDS & AT EACH SPLICE TEST AND SPECIAL INSPECTIONS 1. TESTS AND SPECIAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED AS INDICATED ON THE TESTING & INSPECTION FORM APPROVED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WITH THE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. 2. ALL TEST AND SPECIAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A CERTIFIED SPECIAL INSPECTOR FROM AN ESTABLISHED TESTING & INSPECTION COMPANY, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. JOBSITE VISITS BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DO NOT CONSTITUTE INSPECTIONS AND ARE NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR SPECIAL INSPECTION. 3. THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR SHALL OBSERVE THE WORK INDICATED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. 4. THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR SHALL FURNISH INSPECTION REPORTS TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, THE ENGINEER OR ARCHITECT OF RECORD AND OTHER DESIGNATED PERSONS. ALL DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION OF THE CONTRACTOR FOR CORRECTION, THEN, IF UNCORRECTED, TO THE PROPER DESIGN AUTHORITY AND TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. 5. THE SPECIAL INSPECTOR SHALL SUBMIT A FINAL SIGNED REPORT STATING WHETHER THE WORK WITH THE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND THE APPLICABLE WORKMANSHIP PROVISIONS OF THE 2022 CBC. 6. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT THESE TESTS AND SPECIAL INSPECTIONS ARE PERFORMED. 7. ITEMS REQUIRING TESTS AND/OR SPECIAL INSPECTIONS ARE IDENTIFIED BELOW. THE LIST BELOW IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE A QUICK GENERAL REFERENCE AS TO WHAT TESTS AND/ OR INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED. FOR THE COMPLETE LISTING OF TESTS AND/OR INSPECTIONS REQUIRED SEE THE APPROVED TESTING AND INSPECTION FORM. TESTS SPECIAL INSPECTIONS A. FILL COMPACTION A. FOOTING EXCAVATION (BY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER) B. CONCRETE B. PILE / PIER INSTALLATION C. SAMPLING AND TESTING OF REINFORCING STEEL C. REINFORCEMENT PLACEMENT D. MILL CERTIFICATES FOR REINFORCING STEEL D. CONCRETE PLACEMENT E. MASONRY E. PLACING & STRESSING TENDONS F. GROUT & MORTAR F. REBAR COUPLERS G. ALL COMPLETE PENETRATION GROOVE WELDS BY ULTRASONIC TESTING OR RADIOGRAPHY G. MASONRY PLACEMENT & GROUTING H. SAMPLING & TESTING OF STRUCTURAL STEEL H. SHOP WELDING I. MILL CERTIFICATES FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL I. FIELD WELDING J.EXPANSION OR EPOXY ANCHORS J. HIGH STRENGTH BOLTING K. EXPANSION OR EPOXY ANCHORS L. SHEAR STUD INSTALLATION M. STRONG WALL N. SHEARWALLS WHERE EDGE NAILING IS ≤ 4" O.C. SHEARWALL TYPE MAXIMUM SHEAR (plf) EDGE NAILING (EN)3 FIELD NAILING (FN)3 PLYWOOD/OSB SHEATHING (UON) 5 8" ANCHOR BOLT SPACING8,9,10 SOLE PLATE TO FRAMING MEMBER BELOW4,5 TOP PLATE TO TRUSS/RAFTER OR BLOCK ABOVE6 FRAMING MEMBER AT PANEL JOINTS 7 SILL PLATE
7 SW011 100 8d @ 7" 8d @ 7" 1
2" GWB 72" 16d @ 16" N/A 2x MIN 2x MIN SW1 260 8d @ 6" 8d @ 12" 3 8" 48" 16d @ 6" A35 @ 24" 2x MIN 2x MIN SW2 350 8d @ 4" 8d @ 12" 38" 36" 16d @ 4" A35 @ 16" 2x MIN 2x MIN SW3 490 8d @ 3" 8d @ 12" 38" 16" 16d @ 4" A35 @ 12" 3x MIN 2x MIN SW4 600 8d @ 4" 8d @ 12" 3 8" BOTH SIDES 12" SDWS0.22"x6" @ 6" OC A35 @ 8" 3x MIN 2x MIN SW5 760 8d @ 4" 8d @ 12" 38" BOTH SIDES 12" SDWS0.22"x6" @ 6" OC LS90 @ 12" 3x MIN 3x MIN SW6 980 8d @ 3" 8d @ 12" 38" BOTH SIDES 12" SDWS0.22"x6" @ 4" OC LS90 @ 8" 3x MIN 3x MIN SW7 1280 8d @ 2" 8d @ 12" 38" BOTH SIDES 8" SDWS0.22"x6" @ 4" OC LS90 @ 8" 4x MIN 3x MIN NOTES 1. STUD SPACING IS 16" MAX O.C. 2. ALL NAILS INTO PRESSURE TREATED LUMBER SHALL BE HOT-DIPPED, GALVANIZED 3. ALL NAILS INTO SHEATHING ARE COMMON NAILS AS FOLLOWS: 8d = 2-1 2"x0.131" DIAMETER 10d = 3"x0.148" DIAMETER 4. ALL NAILS INTO SOLE PLATE ARE BOX NAILS AS FOLLOWS: 16d = 3-1 2"x0.135 DIAMETER 5. SOLE PLATE NAILING SHALL BE STAGGERED 1 2" MIN ABOUT THE OF THE RIM WHERE SPACING IS LESS THAN 6" 6. HARDWARE SPECIFIED IS IN ADDITION TO H1 TIES EACH TRUSS/RAFTER TO TOP PLATE LOCATION 7. ALL FRAMING LUMBER IS D.F. 8. ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH 3"x3"x0.229" SQUARE PLATE WASHERS 9. INSTALL WASHER WITHIN 1 2" OF THE SHEATHED SIDE OF THE MUD SILL 10. ANCHOR BOLTS INTO EXISTING CONCRETE SHALL BE DRILLED AND EPOXIED 6" MIN WITH SET EPOXY 11. SW0 USES GYPSUM WALL BOARD ON 1 SIDE ONLY w/ 6 COOLER NAILS OR NO. 6x1 1 4" DRYWALL SCREWS @ 7" MAX O.C. SYMBOL HOLDOWN ID CAPACITY MINIMUM FRAMING MEMBER 1 ANCHOR BOLT AT NEW FOOTING2,3,4 MINIMUM EMBEDMENT6,7, ALL-THREAD ANCHOR BOLT AT EXISTING FOOTING* (Gr. A36) DIAMETER MIN FOOTING WIDTH & DEPTH8,9 EMBEDMENT EPOXY10 HDU2-3 3075 DBL 2x SSTB24 21" 5 8" 8"x12" 8" SET-3G HDU4-3 4565 DBL 2x SB5/8x24 18" 58" 12"x24" 8" SET-3G HDU5-3 5645 DBL 2x SB5/8x24 18" 58" 12"x24" 10" SET-3G HDU8-3.5 6970 4x SSTB28 25" HDU8-4.5 7855 TRIPLE 2x SB7/8x24 18" HDU11-5.5 9535 6x6 1" ATR 5 12"5 HDU14-5.5 14445 6x6 1" ATR5 12"5 NOTES 1. STITCH NAIL DF STUDS WITH (2) ROWS OF 16d @ 12" O.C. (MIN 18 TOTAL), STAGGERED VERTICALLY 2. USE 'L' VERSION OF SSTB ANCHORS FOR: TWO-POUR FOUNDATIONS AND WHERE 3x SILL PLATE IS USED 3. PROVIDE HORIZONTAL REBAR WITHIN 3"-5" FROM TOP OF FOOTING AT ALL ANCHOR BOLT LOCATIONS 4. PROVIDE 3" MIN CLEARANCE AT THE BOTTOM OF ANCHOR, DEEPEN FOOTING AS NEEDED 5. 1" ALL THREAD WITH NUT-WASHER-NUT ASSEMBLY EMBEDDED 12" MIN INTO 36"sq x 18" DEEP MIN FOOTING. USE 2-1/2" x 3 8" THICK MIN PLATE 6. EMBEDMENT GIVEN IS INTO FIRST POUR FOR TWO-POUR CONDITION 7. AT CMU WALLS, ANCHORS SHALL BE EMBEDDED INTO THE FOOTINGS AND EXTENDED WITH ALL-THREAD BARS AND HIGH STRENGTH COUPLER NUT 8. FOOTING DEPTH INCLUDES 8" SLAB OR 8" STEM WALL 9. WHERE EXISTING FOOTING OR STEM WALL WIDTH IS NOT MET, OK TO WIDEN FROM ONE SIDE ONLY (6" MIN) AND DOWEL INTO EXISTING FOOTING 10. SUBSTITUTE WITH AT-3G EPOXY IF CURING TEMP. IS BELOW 32°F DURING FIRST WEEK OF CURING. *SPECIAL INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO AND DURING INSTALLATION OF POST-INSTALLED TENSION ANCHORS. DRILL HOLE 1 8" LARGER THAN ANCHOR DIAMETER. HOLE MUST BE CLEANED, BRUSHED, AND BLOWN PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. N/A HOLDOWN LEGEND SHEARWALL SCHEDULE SYMBOL STRAP ID MINIMUM FRAMING MEMBER 1 CAPACITY (lbs) AND TOTAL NUMBER OF FASTENERS
2 AT VARIOUS FLOOR DEPTHS 10" 12" 18" 24" MST37 DBL 2x 2705 # 2460
# 1720
# N/A 22-16d 20-16d 14-16d MST48 DBL 2x 4200
# 3950
# 3210
# N/A 34-16d 32-16d 26-16d MST60 DBL 2x 6235
# 6235
# 5240
# 4605
# 46-16d 46-16d 40-16d 34-16d MST72 DBL 2x 6730
# 6730
# 6730
# 6505
# 62-16d 62-16d 54-16d 48-16d NOTES 1. STITCH NAIL DF STUDS WITH (2) ROWS OF 16d @ 12" O.C. STAGGERED VERTICALLY 2. NAILS: 16d = 0.162" DIAMETER x 3 1 2" LONG 3. OK TO INSTALL STRAPS OVER SHEATHING STRAP LEGEND 01.10.25 (530) 672-1600 SHEET #: REVISIONS C:\Users\Ben\Desktop\Work Folder\2024\Yountville_Restaurant_322\PHASE 2\2_Structurals\Yountville_Restaurant_Phase 2_322.dwg 1/10/2025 9:56:46 AM BEN (BEN) 6539 WASHINGTON STREET
STRUCTURAL NOTES
YOUNTVILLE, CA 94599
ESTATE YOUNTVILLE RESTAURANT SN1
These documents are the property of Backen & Backen Architecture. Any unauthorized use without the written consent is prohibited by law. Backen & Backen Architecure disclaims responsibility for the documents if used whole or in part atany other location.
Copyright © 2023 by BACKEN & BACKEN 12/12/23 S:\2022\202245 - The Estate Yountville\1-Drawings\01-Current\RESTAURANT\01_Sheet Files\AR0.0 Cover Sheet.dwg Plot Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project No.
Date 6539 WASHINGTON STREET YOUNTVILLE, CA 94599 ESTATE YOUNTVILLE -202245
12/19/23 LAND USE APP. RESTAURANT
SCALE :
- AR0.0
COVER SHEET
ESTATE YOUNTVILLE RESTAURANT
YOUNTVILLE, CA, 94599
102
105
104
350.13'
N 50°51'00" E 376.84'
N 55°22'00" E 363.70'
TEL
UB
RAMP
RAMP
SS UB
AC
RAMP
LANDSCAPING
GRASS
GRASS
PATIO
GRAVEL
AC
GATE
GATE
E UB
E UB
BFP
GM
BFP
UB RAMP RAMP
UB
GATE
DIRT
LANDSCAPING
WOOD PLANTER
WOOD PL NTER
AC DIKE
GATE
WOOD CURB
GRAVEL
GRASS
UB
WALL
W L
PL PL
103.89
103.43 TC
36-IN PALM
9-IN RWD
10-IN RWD
11-IN RWD
11-IN RWD
12-IN RWD
36-IN TREE
12-IN RWD
12-IN RWD
12-IN RWD
26-IN PALM
22-IN PALM
22-IN CYP
28-IN FIR
28-IN FIR
32-IN FIR
12-IN PINE
18-IN OAK
12-IN TREE
12-IN TREE
105
102
103
104
104
104
104
105
104
103
MAIN DINING ROOM
BAR
DINING
These documents are the property of Backen & Backen Architecture. Any unauthorized use without the written consent is prohibited by law. Backen & Backen Architecure disclaims responsibility for the documents if used whole or in part atany other location.
Copyright © 2023 by BACKEN & BACKEN 12/11/23 S:\2022\202245 - The Estate Yountville\1-Drawings\01-Current\RESTAURANT\01_Sheet Files\AR2.1 Existing & Demo Floor Plan.dwg Plot Date
Drawn By
Checked By
Project No.
Date 6539 WASHINGTON STREET YOUNTVILLE, CA 94599 ESTATE YOUNTVILLE -202245
12/19/23 LAND USE APP. RESTAURANT
SCALE :
-
1 AR2.1
EXISTING / DEMO FLOOR PLAN
TRUE NORTH
DRAWING NORTH
0 1' 8' 16'
AR2.1
EXISTING / DEMO
FLOOR PLAN
SHEET NOTES
1. EXISTING OAK TREE TO BE REMOVED SHOWN
DASHED
2. DEMO EXISTING CONCRETE PAVING / RAMPS SHOWN
DASHED
3. DEMO EXISITNG PATIO SHOWN DASHED
4. DEMO EXISTING WALLS, WINDOWS, DOORS SHOWN
DASHED
5. PROPERTY LINE
6. EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN
7. EXISTING PARKING TO REMAIN
8. EXISTING WOOD SHED, FENCING AND STORAGE
YARD TO BE REMOVED.
9. EXISTING WALL SHOWN SOLID TO REMAIN, SSD.
10. KITCHEN EQUIPMENT & HOOD TO REMAIN.
11. EXISTING BASEMENT BELOW SHOWN SHADED TO BE
FILLED, SSD.
SEAT COUNT (EXISTING)
PROPOSED USE SEAT COUNT
BAR 20
MAIN DINING ROOM 68
DINING 32
PATIO 50
TOTAL EXISTING SEATING 170
18"
heritage
oak to be
protected
portion of
the terrace
shown in
red is
porous
sand set
pavers on
grade.