CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

Historic Resources Board

February 8, 2017

To: Chair Goodhue and Planning Commissioners

From: Marc Wiener, AICP, Community Planning and Building Director

Submitted by: Matthew Sundt, Contract Planner

Subject: Consideration of a Design Study (DS 15-308) and Coastal Development

Permit for repair work to an existing historic residence located in the
Single-Family Residential (R-1), Beach and Riparian Overlay and
Archaeological Significance (AS) Overlay Zoning Districts

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Design Study (DS 15-308) and Coastal Development Permit subject to the attached
conditions

Application: DS 15-308 (Henderson) APN: 009-423-001 and 009-423-002

Block: B-18 Lots: 1 & 2
Location: NW Corner of Scenic and Martin Way
Applicant: Runnoe Construction Property Owner: Wellington S. Henderson Jr.

BACKGROUND
The existing residence, known as the Cabin on the Rocks, is a low one-story concrete and
Carmel Stone house that projects out on a granite outcropping over the Carmel Bay. The house
was designed by Architect Frank Lloyd Wright in 1948. This property was listed on the Carmel
Historic Survey in 2001 as the only house designed and constructed by Frank Lloyd Wright in
Carmel that relates directly to its seaside location and environment. The design of the residence
is nautical whereby the house is like a ships bridge and the terrace is the prow of the ship.
This residence was recently placed on the National Register of Historic Places. According to the
Citys property records and Monterey County Assessor records, the construction period of the
residence lasted from April 1951 t o November 1952.

33
DS 16-308 (Henderson)
February 8, 2017
Staff Report
Page 2

PROPOSED PROJECT
The project description provided by the applicant (refer to Attachments B, C and D) indicates
that the proposed project consists of two major components: (1) stabilize the underlying
concrete walls by replacing the rusted steel rods with new stainless steel rods and turnbuckles.
These rods will be encased in three below ground (approximately 4 feet below the top of
wall/prow) concrete beams to tie the existing concrete walls together to insure the long-term
viability of the prow; and (2) removal, repair and replacement of the existing rock facing. The
existing stone will be retained and reused to the maximum extent possible. Damaged and
broken stone will be replaced in-kind with stone of consistent coloring. The repair of the
stone veneer includes anchoring the stone to the concrete sub-wall using epoxy/fiberglass1
anchors to insure stability. This anchoring system will be used to resolve the ongoing failure
and loss of the stone veneer.

All work for this repair project will be conducted in consultation with and oversight by the
project historian to insure conformance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for repairs
to an historic structure. The objective is to ensure the concrete walls long-term stability and
that the stone faade pattern, materials, and colors mimic the original existing. Repair work is
to take up to eight weeks. Work is performed with consultation of tidal charts and weather
forecasts to insure work can proceed without interruptions due to inclement weather or high
tides.

All material and construction equipment will be stored in the paved driveway area in the front
of the property. No heavy equipment will be required. Because of the limited space all soil
removal and relocation work will be done by hand shovel and wheelbarrows. No material or
construction activity will occur on the beach or the rock outcroppings beyond the temporary
work corridor. The work corridor is the area that includes netting, a pathway for the workers
and a five-foot wide scaffolding. The work corridor will be netted to insure that no materials or
debris is allowed to enter the ocean, rock or beach areas. The site and work corridor will be
secured when work is not being performed.

The Historic Resources Board reviewed this project at its October 17, 2016 meeting and
determined the proposed work to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

1
Epoxy/fiberglass anchors are a composite of corrosion resistant vinyl ester resin and glass fiber reinforcement
formed into a rod shape, and coated with a coarse quartz sand to provide bond adhesion to concrete.

34
DS 16-308 (Henderson)
February 8, 2017
Staff Report
Page 3

Construction will occur in three phases

Phase 1 Site preparation and excavation. Integral to installing the concrete encased
steel rods and prior to their installation there will be removal of the patio overburden (includes
the pea gravel ground cover) to a depth necessary to expose the interior (landward side) of the
walls. Repairs to the underlying, existing concrete walls are not anticipated but if after
excavation structural deficiencies in the wall are discovered, repairs will be made as warranted
at this time. Excavated materials are removed by hand (shovels and wheelbarrows) and stored
on-site until such time as it is appropriate to back fill.

Phase 2 Reinforcing / restoring the deck. Install tie-rods as shown on plans and
previously excavated soils are returned as backfill and compacted; the gravel is returned to its
original state.

Phase 3 Re-facing. This project component will be the most visible to the public. The
stone veneer will be removed by hand from the wall. Stones will be cleaned, sorted, and stored
in the driveway area. Stones that survive the deconstruction process will be reused. Damaged
and broken stone will be replaced with like-kind stone as approved by the project historian.
As the original stone quarry is no longer operational the alternative Santa Maria stone from a
quarry in the King City area of Monterey County will be used. Repairs to the underlying,
existing concrete walls are not anticipated but if during removal of the veneer structural
deficiencies in the wall are discovered, repairs will be made as warranted at this time. The new
stone facing will be anchored to the concrete wall using the aforementioned epoxy/fiberglass
anchors.

The Citys Historic Preservation Consultant, Kent Seavey, has made recommendations regarding
the stone replacement. Mr. Seavey has been working with the property owner and he will be
involved throughout the process to ensure compliance with the Secretary of the Interiors
Standards. The following recommendations are included as project conditions:

1. That the applicant analyze the original mortal composition and match;
2. Prior to any construction activity, the applicant shall photograph immediate areas on
the wall at the proposed anchor locations to create a matrix for the Carmel Stone
replacement. The stone shall be replaced/repaired to match the photos;
3. The applicant shall make a measured cross-section drawing of the wall structure from
the coring holes and note the build-up of the stone, mortar and concrete within the wall
to use as a reference for future repairs to the stone work;

35
DS 16-308 (Henderson)
February 8, 2017
Staff Report
Page 4

4. The proposed stone shall be reviewed and approved by the historic consultant for color,
texture and suitability prior to installation.; and
5. The stone placement, alignment, and configurations (horizontal and vertical) shall match
the existing to the fullest extent possible.

Sand Supply
As requested by the California Coastal Commission, a quantified sand supply analysis was
prepared by Haro, Kasunich and Associates (refer to Attachment D) to determine what impact,
if any, would occur to the coastal sand supply as a result of project implementation. This report
indicates that there is no material subject to erosion, except for the bedrock that exists
seaward of the concrete walls. In the hypothetical situation without the concrete wall in place,
the earth materials landward of the wall position would erode and nourish the beach. The
report indicates that the projects theoretical sand supply impact is 0.56 cubic yards per year.
Based on a cost of $50 per cubic yards to purchase and delivery sand, the cost of the impact
would be $28 per year. 2

STAFF ANALYSIS

Zoning Compliance: Pursuant to CMC Section 17.20.190 (Shoreline Protection); Shoreline

protective structures may be permitted only when the review authority determines that the
structure is:

1. Necessary to protect existing structures, coastal-dependent uses, public beaches, public

access and beach facilities in danger of erosion;

Staff Response: The existing stone veneer has been in place for 66 years and has weathered
and deteriorated to such an extent that the historic integrity of the Henderson / Frank Lloyd
Wright residence (Cabin on the Rocks) is threatened. If nothing is done, the stone veneer will
erode, fall in large sheets or individual stones to the bedrock below, and potentially be a threat
to those visiting the beach. The proposed project will mitigate the deteriorated condition and
right the ship.

2. The least environmentally damaging feasible alternative;

2
This cost was verified by the report author using information from the operators of the sand quarry in Marina and
on 8 CY per truck load.

36
DS 16-308 (Henderson)
February 8, 2017
Staff Report
Page 5

Staff Response: The proposed project description indicates that five-foot wide scaffolding,
sheet netting, storage of overburden on-site, and use of hand tools will be the least
environmentally damaging. No feasible alternative exists.

3. Designed to successfully eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline and

sand supply;

Staff Response: As discussed above, the sand supply analysis indicates that the projects impact
to the shoreline and sand supply is insignificant.

4. Designed to avoid significant intertidal or subtidal areas;

Staff Response: The existing walls and stone veneer are not in the intertidal or subtidal zones
and would not impact these areas.

5. Designed to avoid, or minimize if avoidance is infeasible, impacts on beach access; and

Staff Response: The existing walls and the proposed project have no impact on beach access.
Public beach access (ingress and egress) exists to the south of the property and is independent
of the construction site. The proposed project will have no affect on this access as the
combined foot print of scaffolding and worker pathway adjacent to the scaffolding is
approximately 8-feet.

6. Designed to respect natural landforms and minimize visual impact to the extent
possible, through means including the use of structures, colors and materials that are
visually compatible to those already established.

Staff Response: The proposed project includes repair to the walls and stone veneer with like-
kind stone with oversight by the project historian.

Staff concludes that the proposed project is consistent with all of the above requirements.

Archaeological Analysis
The subject residence is located within the City of Carmel Archaeological Significance Overlay
district. Article II of CMC Section 17.20 stipulates that an Archaeological Resources

37
DS 16-308 (Henderson)
February 8, 2017
Staff Report
Page 6

Management Report must be prepared. In this case such a report will not be required as such
report was prepared for the previously approved retaining wall on the north side of the
property. Therefore, it will suffice in this case that a Professional Archaeologist be retained for
a pre-construction meeting and on an on-call basis. The attached Conditions of Approval
reflect this requirement. Refer to Attachment A.

Environmental Review
The proposed project is categorically exempt from CEQA requirements, pursuant to Section
15301 (Class 1) Existing Facilities. The project includes the repair of an existing shoreline wall,
and therefore qualifies for a Class 1 exemption. The proposed work will not develop or disturb
surrounding areas and does not present any unusual circumstances that would result in a
potentially significant environmental impact.

ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A Conditions of Approval
Attachment B Engineer Justification Report
Attachment C Description of Work
Attachment D Sand Supply Analysis
Attachment E Project Plans

38
Attachment A Conditions of Approval

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND BUILDING

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

DS 16-308
Wellington Henderson Jr.
NW Corner of Scenic and Martin
Block: B-18, Lot: 1 & 2
APN: 009-423-001 and 009-423-002

AUTHORIZATION:

This Design Study (DS 16-308) authorizes repairs to the existing concrete walls, replacement of
tie-rods and repair stone veneer.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS:

1. Prior to the beginning of construction, the applicant shall convene a pre-construction

meeting to include the contractor, the Citys Project Planner, and the project Historian, to
review the project plans, and conditions herein, to ensure compliance with the Secretary of
the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

2. That the applicant analyze the original mortal composition and match.

3. Prior to any construction activity, the applicant shall photograph immediate areas on the
wall at the proposed anchor locations to create a matrix for the Carmel Stone replacement.
The stone shall be replaced/repaired to match the photos.

4. The applicant shall make a measure cross-section drawing of the wall structure from the
coring holes and note the build-up of the stone, mortar and concrete within the wall to use
as a reference for futures repair to the stone work.

5. The proposed stone shall be reviewed and approved by City Staff and the Citys Historic
Consultant for color, texture and suitability prior to installation.

6. The stone placement, alignment, and configurations (horizontal and vertical) shall match
the existing to the fullest extent possible.

7. Mechanized equipment within the intertidal zone is prohibited.

39
DS 16-308 (Henderson)
February 8, 2017
Conditions of Approval
Page 2

8. Storage of equipment and construction materials shall be located on private property at all
times and shall not be located in the intertidal zone.

9. All work should be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection and
documented for further research.

10. All new construction involving excavation shall immediately cease if cultural resources are
discovered on the site, and the applicant shall notified the Community Planning and
Building Department within 24 hours. Work shall not be permitted to recommence until
such resources are properly evaluated for significance by a qualified archaeologist. If the
resources are determined to be significant, prior to resumption of work, a mitigation and
monitoring plan shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and reviewed and approved
by the Community Planning and Building Director. In addition, if human remains are
unearthed during excavation, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner
has made the necessary findings as to origin and distribution pursuant to California Public
Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98.

11. The project proponent shall retain a professional archaeologist to provide pre-construction
briefing(s) to supervisory personnel of any excavation contractor to alert them to the
possibility of exposing significant prehistoric archaeological resources within the project
area. The briefing shall discuss any archaeological objects that could be exposed, the need
to stop excavation at the discovery, and the procedures to follow regarding discovery
protection and notification of the project proponent and archaeological team. An Alert
Sheet shall be posted in conspicuous locations at the project location to alert personnel to
the procedures and protocols to follow for the discovery of potentially significant
prehistoric archaeological resources.

12. The project proponent shall retain a professional archaeologist on an on-call basis during
the ground disturbing construction phase to review, identify, and evaluate cultural
resources that may be inadvertently exposed during construction. The archaeologist shall
review and evaluate any discoveries to determine if they are historic resource(s) and/or
unique archaeological resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

*Acknowledgement and acceptance of conditions of approval.

___________________________________________________ __________________
Property Owner Signature Date

Once signed, please return to the Community Planning and Building Department.
40
Attachment B - Engineer Report (Justification)

610. onterey Bay Engineers, Inc.

~Civil Engineering land Survering
Steve C. Wilson, RCE 25,136/ PLS 5,207
Brian M. Wilson, PLS 7,771
Benjamin C. Wilson, RCE 72,928
Timothy D. Martin, PLS 8,670
607 Charles Ave. Suite B.. Seaside, Ca 93955
Phone(831)8~7899 Fax(831)8~7879
Email: mbayengr@mbay.net
Website: mbeinc.com

October 3, 2016

Mr. Mark Wiener, Senior Planner

City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
P.O. BoxCC
Carmel, CA 93921

Re: Henderson Residence, 26336 Scenic Road, Carmel, CA

Dear Mark:

As a result of your meeting with Chuck Henderson, we have been asked to summarize why
the repairs to the walls facing the ocean at this property are necessary. As you know, we have
prepared plans and structural details for this proposed work. The existing walls are
constructed of reinforced concrete with a shale stone facing.

We have had an opportunity of review the original plans for the subject walls, and we are of
the opinion that the structural design done during 1950s would not comply with the
requirements of current building codes. The existing wall footings are two (2) feet in width,
and by themselves would not provide resistance to overturning forces exerted by the soil
backfilL To compensate for the narrow wall footings, and the intentional outward lean of the
walls, steel tie rods were originally installed to resist the resultant overturning forces.
Excavation behind the wall has disclosed these tie rods have rusted to the point where they are
not functional. Our plan is to replace this system with three tension beams, each consisting of
three stainless steel rods encased in concrete. Two tie points are necessary on the northerly-
facing wall, and three tie points will be used on the longer southerly-facing wall. This will
give the wall the structural stability it will need in the event of hydrostatic loading or
earthquakes.

We have also observed that the stone facing is in the process of separating from the
underlying concrete. This is evidenced by a longitudinal cracking along portions of the top
cap on the southerly-facing wall. There is also noticeable erosion of the mortar between the
shale stones, and erosion of the shale stone itself in several locations, most notably near the
westerly end of the southerly-facing wall.

Because of these two major reasons, the repairs to these walls are urgent, and very necessary.
Structural problems, once they become apparent, become a viscous cycle, and require
immediate attention. It would be highly undesirable if the existing deterioration to the wall
facing would be allowed to continue. That deterioration could result in an unsightly failure of
a part of the wall facing. Worse yet, should a major seismic event occur, a collapse could

41
Site wall repairs at the Henderson Residence Walls, October 3, 2016 page2

occur unless these walls are reinforced as called for in our plans. It is in the best interest of
public safety and the restoration of this historic site that this work proceeds as soon as
possible.

'This is to also approve the construction management plan that was prepared by Runnoe
Construction, who will be supervising and managing this work.

Sincerely yours,

~cd
Steve C. Wilson

cc: Chuck Henderson

Runnoe Construction

42
 J.
N
2
~
~
3
\['
_j
s~
<(_
~
~
r:L
\=-
l
~
~
,
l i
~
~
~-
43
Attachment C - Project Description
Description of the proposed repair of the Ship's Prow at the Walker House

The intention of the proposed repair project is to replace the eroded stone veneer on the ocean side of
the house and to replace the interior structural components holding the walls together. The original
carbon steel rods that tied the walls to the house foundation have rusted out, and much of the stone
veneer has been comprised by erosion.

On the south side of the Ship's Prow, the stones are severely eroded and, in some locations, missing. In
addition, there is separation of the stone veneer from the wall foundation, compromising the integrity
of the wall. On the northwesterly and northern sides of the wall, the erosion is less severe, but it too
has cracks showing separation from the foundation. These can let water in and hasten the instability.

It is our desire to replace the stone veneer on all sides of the wall. At a bare minimum, we must replace
the south side urgently. However this option is less desirable, as it may result in an uneven look on this
most visible and photographed of structures. Furthermore it is evident that other sides will need to be
repaired eventually, and doing all sides together will give us more flexibility to reuse existing stone
material.

The replacement of the structural components and the stone veneer is a necessary repair. The stone
masonry on the wall will be made stronger through the use of fiberglass coated rebar 'tie in's. These will
be drilled into the wall and epoxied in place. They will be invisible to the exterior but will provide a
stronger adhesion between the veneer surface and the wall foundation. In order to ensure stability of
the wall, both in the long term and during the repair process, we need to replace the interior structural
components holding the walls together. As noted above, the original carbon steel rods that tied the
walls to the house foundation have rusted out. We propose a set of submerged grade beams formed of
epoxy coated stainless steel rods surrounded by concrete. These will tie the exterior walls together as
well as to the house foundation.

Santa Maria stone will be sourced to replace the eroded stone. The quarry where the existing stone was
obtained is no longer available. Santa Maria stone has similar characteristics (color, texture) to the
existing stone, but it is harder. Once the stone is removed from the wall, we will examine, repair and
ultimately reuse as much of the existing stone as possible. This will be done in a way to provide both a
consistent look to the wall as well as the best long term stability.

We will use photographs as a guide to ensure that the new veneer has a consistent look to the existing,
and original veneer. This entails mimicking the horizontal arrangement of the stones, the orientation of
the 'grain' within the stone and the variety of sizes and placements of the stone. The interlocking
nature of the stones in the angled points of the wall is also a consideration. We will also use the services
of the Historical Consultant to provide some oversight to the process in order to ensure consistency with
Carmel, California and Federal standards for Historic Preservation. We will make available photographic
records to help guide this process.

We will replicate the color, texture and application of the original grout (such as the "V" shape in the
finished application), incorporating modern formulations in order to ensure long term erosion
resistance. Finally, once the repair project has been completed, we will use a sealant to provide

September 7, 2016 Page 1 of4

44
 Description of the proposed repair of the Ship's Prow at the Walker House

additional protection. This will be applied regularly, as we do with the rest of the stone surfaces of the
dwelling.

All work proposed in this project is a repair consistent with the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea's Historic
Preservation Ordinance, including Section 17.32.210 Maintenance and Upkeep.

September 7, 2016 Page 2 of4

45
 Description of the proposed repair of the Ship's Prow at the Walker House

Foundation of the wall interlocking stone veneer at edge

Pattern of stone veneer on south face.

September 7, 2016 Page 3 of4

46
 Description of the proposed repair of the Ship's Prow at the Walker House

Pattern of stone veneer on northwest face.

Previous stone repair work on the front gate pillar.

September 7, 2016 Page 4 of4

47
 CA LIC. #450809

Henderson Residence
NE Corner of Scenic and Martin
Cannel By The Sea, CA.

Walker Bouse Ship's Prow Repair Plan

Purpose:

The purpose of this project is to repair the failing veneer stone on the 'Ships Prow' of the
Walker House and to repair and strengthen the structural integrity of the underlying wall. In
the end, it is the intention of the owner to return the structure and appearance of the 'Ships
Prow' to the original condition when his Great Grandmother had it built.

Requirements:

All work for this repair project will be conducted in consultation with and oversight by the
project Historian to insure consistency with the Secretary of Interior Standards for repairs to
a historic structure. The objective is to ensure that the stone favade pattern, materials, and
colors mimics the original.

Repair work as defined is estimated to take from six to eight weeks.

All of the repair work noted here will be performed after consultation with tidal charts and
weather patterns to insure work can proceed without interruption due to inclement weather or
higher tides.

All material and construction equipment will be stored in the paved driveway area in the
front of the property. No heavy equipment is required for the project. No material or
construction activity will occur on the beach or the rock outcroppings beyond the temporary
'Work Corridor'.

Netting will be installed around the 'Work Corridor' to insure that no materials or debris is
allowed to enter the ocean, rock, or beach areas. The site and 'Work Corridor' will be
secured when work is not being performed.

At all times, a representative of the Owner/Runnoe Construction will be on site to supervise

work to monitor safety and compliance issues. We realize the sensitivity of a site and will
insure that all work complies with this plan, and any conditions of a repair permit.

48
Walker House 'Ships Prow' repair plan

Scope of Work:

The walls, which were built in 1952, consist of a below grade concrete wall with a Carmel
Stone facing, minimally attached at best. Fasteners below the surface used to connect the
stones to the wall have failed. The Carmel Stone facing is in danger of disconnecting entirely
from the underlying concrete wall and falling onto the rocks, beach, and ocean. Structural
cracks are evident, and are growing larger. In addition to the rock facing, the underlying
concrete wall was originally attached to the foundation of the home with galvanized rods in
six locations. These rods have completely rusted away. Therefore the entire wall is no longer
attached to the house foundation and is in danger of failing unless secured soon.

The repair project consists of two parts:

1. Replacement of the rusted steel rods with new stainless steel rods and turnbuckles: These
structural repair components will be encased in a below ground concrete beam to stabilize
the existing concrete wall to insure its long term viability.
2. Removal and replacement of the existing rock facing: The existing stone will be retained
and reused to the maximum extent possible. Damaged and broken stone will be replaced
"in kind" with stone of consistent coloring. The repair of this facing includes anchoring
the stone to the concrete sub wall using epoxy anchors to insure stability. This new
anchoring system will be utilized to resolve the ongoing failure and loss of the stone
veneer. The "battered" design of the wall (meaning the design in which the walls lean
outward from their base as they rise, to mimic the bow of a ship) is a major contributor to
the stone veneer failure at this time.

Construction will occur in Phases as follows:

First Phase - Site prep and excavation:

Existing pea gravel ground cover that is (currently atop the entire area between both South
and North sides of the wall to be repaired) gravel will be moved to a secure, on- site location,
covered, and saved for replacement when the reinforcing is complete. The areas requiring
reinforcement will be excavated to the required width and depth. That excavated material
will also be moved to an on-site location, covered and stored for back filling at the
completion of the project. The minor excavation necessary does not require the use of heavy
equipment. Therefore all excavation and movement of material is to be done by hand, with
shovels and wheelbarrows. Where required for the installation of the reinforcing, stone will
be removed from the facing and stored on site for the third phase.

Second Phase - Reinforcing:

Installation of the stainless steel tie-rods and turnbuckles will then occur at the locations
identified in the repair plans. Installation will include tying them into the existing concrete
wall with epoxy and oversized nuts and washers. After installation, the stainless rods and
turnbuckles will then be covered with poured concrete, and previous excavated soils will

Page 2 of4

49
Walker House 'Ships Prow' repair plan

returned as backfill and will be re-compacted. Finally, the stored gravel will be used to cover
the area, returning the area to its original state.

All of this work can and will be performed from the area inside the "Ships Prow" walls. This
work will not be conducted on the "ocean-side of the walls, from the beach, or from rocks
below.

Third Phase - Re-facing:

Removal of the damaged and failing existing stone facing, and reinstallation will occur in
this phase. None of the repair work in this phase will require any heavy equipment at any
time.

First, debris nets will be installed in order to prevent debris from falling into the ocean or on
to the rocks or beach adjacent to the repair project. Five foot wide scaffolding with non-
marring foot pads will be installed on the exterior side of the existing wall. No activity will
occur outside the five foot 'Work Corridor' after installation of the scaffolding. Debris nets
will be installed on the exterior side of the scaffolding to further insure no debris exits the
work envelope. This is similar to scaffolding in an urban setting, where it is set up to make
sure no debris, material, tools, etc. are able to fall on pedestrians. In this case, it is to insure
no material can exit the work envelope. If at any time tidal action or weather threatens the
scaffolding, we will remove it and replace it once conditions allow.

After site preparation is complete, the exterior stone veneer will be temporarily removed,
using extreme care to preserve as much original stone as possible. Stone will be removed by
hand. Undamaged stone will then be transported back to the construction yard of the stone
mason. This stone will be cleaned, mortar removed, sorted, and stored off-site. The stone
mason will exercise care in handling and storing of the original stone for reuse in the
reconstructed facing. Repairs to the underlying, existing concrete walls are not anticipated at
this time, as it appears that the concrete wall are in sound condition. If after excavation, other
necessary repairs, those repairs will be undertaken at this time.

After insuring that the concrete wall is sound, the stone veneer will be reinstalled. Existing
undamaged stone will be returned to the site, cleaned and ready for installation. Damaged
and broken stone will be replaced "in-kind" with 'like kind' stone, as reviewed by and
accepted by the consulting Historian. As the site where the original stone was quarried, is
unavailable, Santa Maria stone has been identified as a close of match as possible. This stone
was used to patch the stone columns in the front of the home, no discernible difference
found. There-facing will proceed by hand, using all care to replace the stone in a manner
that mimics the original design. The stone facing will be anchored to the concrete sub wall
using epoxy anchors. Grout will mimic the original color and texture, and will utilize the 'V"
pattern found in the existing wall. The "battered" design will be returned to/with the same
angle. The same installation pattern will be used, and will be verified by the consulting
Historian.

Page 3 of4

50
Walker House 'Ships Prow' repair plan

Upon completion of this repair project, the new underlying structural components will restore
the integrity of the structure and will insure its long term viability. The failing rock facing
will have been fastened securely to its underpinning. The stone veneer surface will be
restored to its original appearance, pattern, and color.

Cleanup:

After the wall repair is complete, all scaffolding, construction material and debris will be
removed and the site will be restored to its original condition.

Conclusion: This construction management plan was prepared to insure that Best
Management Practices will be utilized at all times on the site and in the repair work areas, to
insure consistency with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Preservation, and to
insure that the Owners desires and City's requirements are met.

Page 4 of4

51
Attachment D - Sand Supply Analysis

HARO, KAsuNICH AND AssociATES, INc.

C oNSULnNG G EoTECHNICAL & C oASTAL E NGINEERS

Project No. M1 0666

13 December 2016

Wellington S. Henderson, Jr.

C/0 Charles Henderson

Subject: Sand Supply Analysis

Reference: Existing Ship's Prow Retaining Wall Resurfacing Project

Henderson Residence
26336 Scenic Road, Carmel,
Monterey County, California
APN 009-423-001 (City of Carmel-By-The-Sea)

Dear Mr. Henderson:

We have previously performed a geological and geotechnical engineering

investigation and sand supply study for the proposed bluff stabilization project
situated along the top of the bluff at the upcoast edge of the property where the
Henderson Residence is located at 26336 Scenic Road .

We understand you have a pending permit application to repair the internal bracing
for the reinforced concrete retaining wall and refinish the natural stone veneer that
forms the architectural fascia at the seaward tip of the residence. The house rests
on a concrete pad atop a triangular Carmel stone masonry retaining wall system
that appears as a ship's prow growing out of the rocky landscape. This retaining
wall is subject to ocean wave impact and deflects wave runup during winter
storms.

From our discussions we understand that the wall system consists of a reinforced
concrete wall faced with stone veneer. The veneer is known as "Carmel Stone"
which is an architectural designation for blocks of rather soft medium bedded tan to
yellowish brown indurated shale and siltstone consisting of pieces of Miocene age
Monterey Formation Shale. The wall system was constructed as an integral part of
the Frank Lloyd Wright designed home (known as the "Walker House") which was
constructed in 1950.

The existing Carmel Stone veneer has lasted 66 years, and has been naturally
weathered over time. Repair and replacement of the bracing and veneer is
necessary as part of the required stewardship of the home which is designated on
the National Register of Historic Places, by the United States National Park
Service. If nothing is done, the stone veneer will erode away and the underlying
concrete wall will be exposed. It is highly unlikely the concrete will abrade
completely through for many decades; however if this occurred then the earth
materials landward of the concrete wall would be subject to erosion.

11 6 EAST LAKE AVENU E WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076 (831) 722-41 75 FAX (831) 722-3202
52
Wellington Henderson, Jr.
Project No. M10666
26336 Scenic Road, Carmel
13 December 2016
Page2

With the concrete wall in place, there is no earth material subject to coastal
erosion, except the bedrock that exists seaward of the concrete wall. In the
hypothetical situation without the concrete wall in place, the earth materials
landward of the wall position would erode and nourish the beach.

The concrete wall is founded on naturally occurring volcanic bedrock. The volcanic
bedrock is susceptible to erosion and abrasion from wave action, but is generally
very erosion resistant and thus is eroding at an extremely slow rate . The volcanic
bedrock surface at the base of the wall is at an elevation of 12 to 14 feet NAVD88,
approximately 7 to 9 feet above the Mean High Water level, well inland of the
Mean High Tide Line. The terrace deposits and topsoils that naturally occur above
the bedrock are much softer earth material and are much more susceptible to
erosion and instability than the bedrock is.

Coastal protection structures stop or reduce erosion of the coastal bluff. Erosion
at the site is episodic. The long term average bedrock erosion rate is likely less
than 0.05 feet per year on average. The long term average terrace deposit
erosion rates are faster. Within the terrace deposits we estimate a long term
average annual historical recession rate of 0.1 to 0.15 feet per year at the site,
and a future long term average annual estimated recession rate of 0.2 to 0.3 feet
per year due to the influence of sea level rise, were the terrace deposits
unprotected and exposed to coastal erosion.

It is generally accepted that eroded sediment below a grain size of 0.18 mm does
not remain in the littoral system. Our observation of bedrock samples and the
characteristics of the weathered bedrock suggest that the bedrock has about
50% by volume that weathers to sediment with a grain size above 0.18 mm, and
remains in the littoral system when eroded. We sampled the topsoil and terrace
deposit sediments in our prior sand supply study, and our sieve analysis showed
that about 74% of the terrace deposits have a grain size above 0.18 mm and
remain in the littoral system when eroded. We have not done subsurface
exploration landward of the ship's prow retaining wall system, but believe the
geology of the earth materials landward of the retaining wall system is likely
simi lar to that observed and found very close by in our prior study.

Based on an 8 foot high wall that armors 4 feet of topsoil and terrace deposits,
2.5 feet of highly weathered bedrock, and 1.5 feet of sound bedrock su itable for
the wall footing to be embedded into; we have calculated the sand content of the
armored earth materials as follows :

( 1.5 ft + 2.5 ft) X 50% + 4 ft X 74% divided by 8 ft =62% average sand

Measured in the direction parallel to the general trend of the shoreline in the
vicinity of the site, the retaining wall armors approximately 10 lineal feet of
coastal bluff length.

116 EAST LAKE AVENUE WATSONVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95076 (831) 722-4175 FAX (831) 722-3202
53
Wellington Henderson, Jr.
Project No. M1 0666
26336 Scenic Road , Carmel
13 December 2016
Page 3

Because the project consists of resurfacing the existing wall by replacement of

the natural stone veneer that forms the architectural fascia on the retaining wall,
calculation of sand supply loss resulting from the project using the premise that the
concrete wall is non-existent, is a somewhat fallacious analysis. Despite the
possibility that the calculations may be misleading relative to the true impact of the
proposed work, we have used the Sand Supply formulas provided by the
California Coastal Commission to quantify the impact of the proposed project on
sand supply. This impact includes sand size material in the bluff that will be
retained by the blufftop retaining wall and would otherwise have contributed to
the beach sand supply when it eroded. There is no beach that is covered by the
retaining wall structures. There is no beach loss that will occur due to future sea
level rise and fixing the back of the beach at the location of the existing structure.
The results of that analysis are attached in Appendix A.

We note that the calculations conclude that the annual sand supply impact is
0.56 cubic yards per year. Based on a cost of $50 per cubic yard to purchase
and deliver sand, the cost of the impact would be $28 per year.

Please call us if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

HARO, KASUNICH & ASSOCIATES, INC.

~~~
Mark Foxx
Engineering Geologist
C. . . ~3 ...
(~----~
J n E. Kasunich
G otechnical Engineer
G.E. 455

MF/JEK!sr

Attachments:
Appendix A : Sand Supply Calculations

Copies: 1 to Addressee by email

1 to File

116 EAST LAKE AVENU E WATSONV ILLE. CALIFORNIA 95076 (831) 722-4 175 FAX (831) 722-3202
54
 Project No. M10666
13 December 2016

APPENDIX A
SAND SUPPLY CALCULATIONS

55
 Project No. M10666
13 December 2016

26336 Scenic Road Retaining Wall Project

Beach Sand Replenishment-- In-lieu Fee Worksheet

Ve = Volume of sand to rebuild the area of beach lost due to encroachment by

the seawall; based on the seawall design and beach and nearshore
profiles (cubic yards)

Ve =Ae XV
Ae = The encroachment area which is equal to the width of the properties
which are being protected (W) times the seaward e encroachment of the
protection (E)

Ae=WxE
W = Width of property to be armored (ft.)

E= Encroachment by seawall, measured from the toe of the

bluff or back beach to the seaward limit of the protection
(ft.)

v= Volume of material required, per unit width of beach, to replace or

reestablish one foot of beach seaward of the seawall; based on the
vertical distance from the top of the beach berm to the seaward limit of
reversible sediment movement (cubic yards/ft. of width and ft. of retreat).
The value of v is often taken to be 1 cubic yard per square ft. of beach. If
a vertical distance of 40 feet is used for the range of reversible sediment
movement, v would have a value of 1.5 cubic yards/square ft. (40 feet x 1
foot x 1 fooU27 cubic feet per cubic yard). If the vertical distance for a
reversible sand movement is less than 40 feet, the value of v would be
less than 1.5 cubic yards per square foot. The value of v will vary from
one coastal region to another. A value of 0.9 cubic yards per square foot
has been suggested for the Oceanside Littoral Cell (Oceanside Littoral
Cell Preliminary Sediment Budget Report, December 1997, prepared as
part of the Coast of California Storm and Tide Wave Study)

Vw = Volume of sand to rebuild the area of beach lost due to long-term erosion
(Vw) of the beach and near-shore, resulting from stabilization of the bluff
face and prevention of landward migration of the beach profile; based on
the long-term regional bluff retreat rate, and beach and nearshore profiles
(cubic yards)

Vw = Aw XV

Aw = The area of beach lost due to long-term erosion is equal to the long-term
average annual erosion rate (R) times the number of years that the back
beach or bluff will be fixed (L) times the width of the property that will be
protected (W) (ft./yr.)

56
 Project No. M1 0666
13 December 2016

Aw= Rx LxW

R= The retreat rate which must be based on historic erosion,

erosion trends, aerial photographs, land surveys, or other
acceptable techniques and documented by the applicant.
The retreat rate should be the same as the predicted
retreat rate used to estimate the need for shoreline
armoring

L= The length of time the back beach or bluff will be fixed or

the design life of the armoring without maintenance (yr.).
For repair and maintenance projects, the design life should
be an estimate of the additional length of time the
proposed maintenance will allow the seawall to remain
without further repair or replacement; if assumed a value of
1, an annual amount is calculated

Vb = Amount of beach material that would have been supplied to the beach if
natural erosion continued, or the long-term reduction in the supply of bluff
material to the beach, over the life of the structure; based on the long-
term average retreat rate, design life of the structure, percent of beach
quality material in the bluff, and bluff geometry (cubic yards)

Vb =(S X W X L) X [(R X hs) + (1/2hu X (R + (Rcu- Rcs)))]/27

S = Fraction of beach quality material in the bluff material, based on
analysis of bluff material to be provided by the applicant

hs = Height of the seawall from the base of the bluff to the top (ft.)
hu = Height of the unprotected upper bluff, from the top of the seawall to
the crest of the bluff (ft.)

Rcu=Predicted rate of retreat of the crest of the bluff, during the period
that the seawall would be in place, assuming no seawall were
installed (ft./yr.). This value can be assumed to be the same as R
unless the applicant provides site specific geotechnical information
supporting a different value

Res = Predicted rate of retreat of the crest of the bluff, during the period
that the seawall would be in place, assuming the seawall has been
installed (ft./yr.). This value will be assumed to be zero unless the
applicant provides site specific geotechnical information supporting
a different value

57
 Project No. M10666
13 December 2016

Vt = Total volume of sand required to replace losses due to the structure,

through reduction in material from the bluff, reduction in nearshore area
and loss of available beach area (cubic yards). Derived from calculations
provided above

M = VtXC

C = Cost, per cubic yard of sand, of purchasing and transporting beach quality
material to the project vicinity($ per cubic yard). Derived from the
average of three written estimates from sand supply companies within the
project vicinity that would be capable of transporting beach quality
material to the subject beach, and placing it on the beach or in the near
shore area

58
 Project No. M10666
13 December 2016

W = 10 ft proposed shoreline armoring

E =
0 ft
v =1.0 cy/sf
R = 0.3 ft/yr (estimate)
L = 0 yr for Aw calculation {base of bluff will not be fixed by proposed project)
L =1 yr for Vb calculation
(annual calculation of sand volume retention resulting from proposed project)
S = 62% ( weighted average of topsoil, terrace deposits and bedrock)
hs =8ft (top of bluff to bottom of armoring)
hu = 0 (not applicable)
Rcu = 0.3 (not applicable)
Res =0 (not applicable)
C = $40 percy (Using C from Marina Sand Plant and Site Location)

Impact of Proposed Structures (not considering existing structures):

Ve = Ae XV

Ae =W x E = 10' x 0' =0 sf
Ve =0 sf x 1.0 cy/sf =0 cy

Vw =Aw XV
Aw = R x L x W = 0.3'/yr x 0 yrs x 10 = 0 sf

Vw =0 sf x 1.0 cy/sf =0 cy

Vb = (S X W XL) X [(R X hs) + (1/2hu X (R + (Rcu- Rcs)))]/27

Vb =62% X 10 X 1 yr X (0.3 ft/yr X 8ft)+ (~X 0 X (0.3 + (0.3-0)})]/27 =0.56 cy/yr

Vt =0 cy + 0 cy + 0.56 cy =0.56 cy

M =Vtx C (Using C from Marina Sand Plant and Site Location)

M = 0.56 CY/yr X $50/CY**** = $ 28/yr
****Cost has been verified with Marina Quarry and Contractor based on an 8 CY delivery

59
Attachment E - Project Plans
MONTEREY BAY ENGINEERS, INC. JOB ~~'3-(}5:J..J }/~f/[)~}e${))1/
Civil Engineering And Land Surveying SHEETNO. I OF_ _____,_ __ _

s, c. 11/)v.SO~ u/..o/~/4-
607 Charles Avenue Suite B
SEASIDE, CA 93955 CALCUlATEDBY DATE
(831) 899-7899 Fax (831) 899-7879 CHECKEOBY _ _ _ _ __ _ _ DATE _ __ _ _ __
mbayengr@mbay.net
SCALE "'() 1/E

: ~ : : A , II! tJ()rp : . 2~ : o: : ' ' : , ! , ! u.J : o., ' : "'"

......
' '
_,,,, .. ,_ j,.... ... ......: ---

60
 VR~ STD-Fiberglass Rebar
Product Data Sheet

An innovative product for reinforcing

concrete where the following benefits
are required:

Non-Corroding

Electromagnetically Neutral

Weight Reduction

Thermal / Electrical Insulating

(also known as glass fiber reinforced polymer, or

GFRP rebar)

Product Availability
Bar Diameter: Stock- #2 (1/4") through #8 (1 .0") in 1/8 inch increments.
(inches) Available- #1 0 (1.25"), #12 (1.5"), #14 (1 .75")

Bar L engths: Stock - 20-00 lengths

(feet) Available- 1-00 to 60-00 in 1/4 inch increments

Bends I Shapes: Stock - 90 right angle bends in bar sizes #3 - #6

Available - Most shapes available in steel are also available in fiberglass, al-
though complicated bends, multiple plane shapes, and long length bends may
require the use of multiple pieces with lap splices. Contact us for details.
Minimum Bend Radius I Diameter - 4 times bar diameter I 8 times bar diameter

Product Composition
A composite of highly corrosion resistant vinyl ester resin and glass fiber reinforcement formed
into a rod shape, and coated with a coarse quartz sand to provide bond adhesion to concrete.

Product Features

Impervious to attack by chloride ions (salt) and most common chemical agents.
Tensile strength almost double that of normal steel rebar.
Transparent to electromagnetic fields and radio frequencies.
Weighs approximately 1/4 of the weight of an equivalent size steel rebar.
Electrically and thermally non-conductive. r--- - -- - - - - - - - - --,

Ooaote'e ,,.._.UO. ,,.....-,......

627 -C Graves Street
Kernersville, NC 27284
Phone: 336/993-2461 Fax: 336/996-2732
Email: sales@fiberglassrebar.com
Website: www.fiberglassrebar.com

61
Design Considerations
The general design recommendations for flexural and shear concrete elements reinforced with FRP
reinforcing bars are presented in ACt 440.1 R-06 (2006), Guide for the Design and Construction of
Structural Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars, as reported by the American Concrete Institute
(ACI} committee 440. Generally, the design methodology for FRP-reinforced concrete members fol-
lows that of steel reinforcing, but takes into account the linear elastic or non-ductile nature of the ma-
terial by using an FRP material reduction factor, and controlling the stress and strain at the service-
ability limit state.

The design philosophy adopted for FRP bars allows consideration to be given to either 1) FRP rup-
ture or 2) concrete crushing as the mechanism that controls failure. It is based on limit states design
principles. An FRP reinforced concrete member is designed based on its required strength, and then
checked for serviceability criteria. In most cases, serviceability criteria limits will control the design.

Design engineers should consider the appropriateness of reinforcing concrete with FRP rebars keep-
ing in mind the following basic points in their designs:
The stress-strain relationship for FRP is linear up to failure.
Direct substitution of FRP rebar in a concrete member designed with steel rebar is not possible in
most cases.
Strain compatibility should be used to calculate the factored resistance of a member.
Glass FRP rebar should be limited to a maximum sustained stress of 25% of the guaranteed design
tensile strength, at the serviceability limit state.

Physical/ Mechanical Properties - VROD STANDARD Fiberglass Rebar

Bar Diameter Guaranteed Tensile Strenath Tensile Modulus of Elasticitv

#2 (6mm) 0.25 inch (6.4mm) 990 MPa 143 ksi 52.5 GPa 7609 ksi
#3 (9mm) 0.375 inch (9.5mm) 1100 MPa 159 ksi 53.4 GPa 7739 ksi
#4 (13mm) 0.5 inch (12.7mm) 1140 MPa 165 ksi 53.6 GPa 7768 ksi
#5 (16mm) 0.625 inch (15.9mm) 1130 MPa 164ksi 55.4 GPa 8029 ksi
#6 (19mm) 0.75 inch (19.0mm) 1110 MPa 161ksi 56.6 GPa 8203 ksi
#7 (22mm) 0.875 inch (22.2mm) 1100 Mpa 159 ksi 53.5 GPa 7754 ksi
#8 (25mm) 1.0 inch (25.4mm) 800 MPa 116 ksi 52.9 GPa 7667 ksi

Additional Information
For additional information on Prices, Handling, Storage, Placement, and Assembly, please visit our website at
www.fiberglassrebar.com, or contact us directly at the phone I email indicated below.

Kernersville, NC 27284
Phone: 336/993-2461 Fax: 3361996-2732
Email: sales@flberglassrebar.com
Website: www.fiberglassrebar.com

62
 "V.,. ,,,u

V-ROD Bend Guidelines

This document has been prepared to serve as a general reference guide when
detailing/designing a reinforced concrete structure that is destined to use GFRP and/or
CFRP as reinforcements (rebar). The following pages exhibit some examples of simple
shapes (and their dimensions limitations) that we invite you to use freely.

Some general limitations inherent to the technology itself are applicable to the
fabrication of bent products and these are:
Parts must always keep tbe same direction (clockwise to counter-clockwise is
impossible).
3D parts are impossible to fabricate.
It is important to note that, in the above mentioned cases, parts can be made by
splicing two or more independent pieces to one another.
To illustrate the described limitations, here are a few images of bends that can't be
made in a single piece.

,,
/

-----------------
:/
-~
Guideline for V-Rod Bends
- 1-
63
 VR~

f--1- J
A

Type03 AB

A B J
# mm (in) Min Max Min Max mm (in)
mm (in) mm (in) mm (in) mm (in) mm (in)
100 1880 100 1880 95.25
#3 10mm (3/8)
(4.0) (74.0) (4.0) (74.Ql 13 . 7~
115 1895 115 1895 127
#4 12mm (Y2)
(4.5) (74.5) (4.5) (74.5) (5.0)
135 1910 135 1910 158.75
#5 15mm (5/8)
(5.5) (75.0) (5.5) 175.0}_ _{_6.25)
150 1930 150 1930 190.5
#6 20mm (%)
(6.0) (75.75) (6.0) (75.75) (7 . ~
222.25
#7 22mm (7/8) N/A N/A N/A N/A
(9.0)
180 1960 180 1960 254
#8 25mm (1)
(7.0) (77.0) (7.0) (77.0) (10.0)

www.fiberglassrebar.com

If unsure if the desired bend can be fabricated, please inquire by sending us a sketch of
the desired bend shape along with dimensions and quantities.

Ph.: 336-993-2461 sales@fiberglassrebar.com Fax: 336-996-2732

Guideline for V-Rod Bends

-2-
64
 I

/ I
I
I
-------- \
J /
/
/

/ I'
I
I (
\ /
/
/
NOTES:
/ ~JCI<Y ARl ..4
ALL 'OCkS I
I
I
I
I
/
/
/
/
/
/
ROIJNnARv OcATJO~IS SHOW' HFRF<ll\ WFRF nFTFRIAIIIF!
WITH THE EEIIEFIT OF P, FIELD :URVEY SU'rLE\IENTEJ Ev
/ IW- CCIAPLcTELY DcFI'IcC
/ /
'
! /

/
RECORC DATA. ALL BOU~WW JATA. SHOV/11 ..4RE FRCII - "'
~lCiJR~S.

/ /

j
DISTA \ICES SHOW\1 ARE II' FEET AIID DECIIAALS TcEREDF.
CO~IIOUR INili'IAL - I 1001.

4 CLCVATim"' Sl OWN ARC cASCO Cl' IIAVD-88 D..4MI.

THE BE'ICclviARK IS A '0151< IAARKcC U 703 RESET 197L" ALOIIC
C.4RII EL '/A_ LEY ROAC ELcV = 96 Ig

5 POOFFRT'I OWIIF"'HIP ccR PAOCFI S I & 7 Fx-c,r, TO THF

IlEAl' HI~" WAER LI'E IIEAII HI~H WAT:R IS ELcVATJJ\1 4 77
I[[T NA'vD-88, DSPLAvCD cv Til[ 4 77' CONTOUR _Ill[ AS
lllASURlO Cl' MAY 20, LC14.

6 e DENOTES N,IJL & TI,G STNAPED 'LS '1217''

LEGEND:

I
I
I
I
I
I

PDF IMAGE PROVIDED

FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY.
SIGNED HARD COPY IS
FINAL WORK PRODUCT.

PROPERTY BOUNDARY PROPERTY LIIIITS r,,E THE MEA~I cJGH WATER

/ I/,1,RK DSPLI,YED BY THE U7 FOOT CO'ITCUR
cCALE: I " - 4J (/
CXTCIIS 01\ OF Til[ - ,
I PROPC~<Tv cCUIIDARV 1

PACIFIC OCEAN )\
//-"'--... 1I

~'.... /, ,~ 1._-.. . ~"'"' I

////./~ ,,""" I

\
\
~~

I
\
EXTEIISION CF THE
PROPE,TY 301 'CARY
I
I
\ nwcK n-1 o ' ' '',,,, , , ',, I
~ / .I I PARCEL 1 ',l REVISIONS PROPOSED RETAINING WALL REPAIRS
\ ~--..,

\
\
',
\\ .,.~
I
12 18 13 SPH
REPLACEMENT OF DETERIORATED TIE RODS
PARCELS 1 & 2, BLOCK B-18
\
\
\PARCEL 2 \
/ _,-'~_,
1J-' -15 , I~S
11-24-15 sew
L-26-16 sew
VOLUl.IE 24, RECORD OF SURVEYS, PAGE 47

CITY OF CARMEL
APN: 009-423-001 & 002
COUNTY OF MO~TEREv

.,. \
LOT 12
\ \ ... _...-
\
I
I
I
I ,_.
II
~_,
_,~ PREPARED

WELUNGTON HENDERSON
By
F0 R

J/-'
\ \ MONTEREY BAY ENGINEERS, INC.
\ 607 CHARLES AVE
'-iCAII
!" = 10'
SUIE B
on
JMS &
SEASIJE,

sew
CALIFOR~I

SHEET
C1
A 939c5

,JU~ llo. I j-Ooi

65
 2-1 21 --------------------------------------------------------~~~~~~==~~~~------------------------ 21
E RODS (.:) EI,CASED IN CCI,CRETE

22
-----------------------------------------
I -~~%'Y:~
(E;GRADE
;A A
_ _ _OCATE TIE RODS J'-5" BELD'II TOP J' \VALL, re
22 22

20
LCCATE TIE RCDS 3' -6" BE LOll TOP OF WALL,
22

2C
22 22

==========~~~==~~~:!~~~iiil~ii~~~~~~~~==
20 20

(E) CJ'ICREE STRUCTURAL WALL BEHII1D FACI'IG ) :ONCRETE STRUCTURA_ WALL

13 1 e I 18

(C) 1/CICRCY SIIAL[ STOll[ rACI (E) MOIHEREY SHA_E 'ACING

16 '6 1c '6 16 15
(E) VOLCANIC BECROCK
(E; VOLWIIC BEDROCK
14 14

\
I7 17 ' 7 1?
' ' ~(E) VOLC~NIC BEDROC'

J u ~ n 1U 1J 1lJ
"'-
8

b b

4 L 4 L 4 4
SECTION A-A (ALONG NEW TENDONS) SECTION B-B (ALONG NEW TENDONS) SECTION C-C (ALONG NEW TENDONS)
cc'LE
-' -", . 1I14" = ' n_' SCALE: 1/4" = I' 0" SCALE: 1/4" = I' o''

(a
/~ ~ - EXISTII'G MOIHEREY SHA_E 1/.ALL FACING
WILL 0[ ~[MCVCD AIIO <[PLPCCO AS
NECESSARY TO IAAifiTAIN LI1IFO"I APPE~.RA'ICE
/ ALL R~~K SHA_L ~l Rl "LACW I~ KIIW.

I
\ CJCJO
r'
- ~
\\B r~~- CXISTING GRAD[
/ ~aEr= ,.
c::J
CJ ~ . ..
B ' " (-
8 ", ", ~_l cXI:i IlliG cUNCRlll ::; I RUC IURA_ WALL SIIAPSOII STRO~IC BCLT 2 STAI\LESS STEE_ 1\EDCc AIIC-m-
.l/4'' STAI\1 FS' STFFI TURI1FUCKI F ~~
~~

\\ , , ,
CJ . ~~-. 3/4" DIA,Ic-ER STAIN_ESS STEEL ALL--HREAD ROJ -l , ,.
CJ . \ \ \ I I \ ,
~ ... 4 II' . .; . .,, ,. . .:, .. \.-. o4 " ._ ,. ~d 4 :~ \ ., ll .:~
L...---1 <J : 4 . :' ... ". ~-. : . :~ .... . '( . ' . It -. 4 .'_ . : .: . 4-: l7 .: . ~ . -'! : ~ <I

.. ... . 4 . \ J: : .- . .. . . ~ _- . : .,.. . : "[ " "

CJ
c:=J(f 1J.
"~LJ
- .




"'- .'
~
'./
__...-
---:::::. :.
. - -
:
' ~

Ill ,. --:
. 4' , . "'
4 ~
q

c::::J \ ~- 1 I '
B ~"'~-:; - 1/2" x 4" souARc STAI'I_Ess STEEL FLn
STAINI FSS STFFI I'UT I I - ~-J ) " ',
0

CJ . , , \IINIMU" EIABEOJ~IEI\T S 4\1 IIICHES-.) 1,_::__..-<--

/ SECTION D-D CJ "
~~
'
-~9J' ~-- IIISTA_L SIIAPSOII //COG[ ANCIICRS IN ACCJ(JAI1C[ WITII 11~1\LrACTUR[c'S INS-RJCTIDNS
SCALE: '" = ''-0"
END ANCHORAGE DETMLS
SCAlF I"= I' ~"

LXIS III\JC; WJ11KLI~

NOTES
HARDSCAPE AREA
EXISTII1G H.~RDSC~FE - 4935.00 SC. FT.
1m C"M'GES TO H,6,RDSC.6.PE .~RE P,o~o"ED

(
I //
I
I \ \
\ CUT I FilL
\
\
I \ \ , ,- (P)' TRIP _ED TIE RODS
"- ENCA~ED IN CJIICRETE
FXISTING 'Ill S-JII TO RF FXC.~'IATFl M1n RFW,FACTFn I\ PI PCF.
13 CUBIC FD J' SOl_, DISPLP.CED 3Y THE IlE/I CONCRETE
PDF IMAGE PROVIDED
I
I \ \ ~\ E'IG,ISEMEI\ T SH1\LL BE SPRE,1.D OilS TE ,IS 0 RECTED BY OWI1ERS
ALL CONCRETE RUB3LE AI'D OTcER DELETER OLS MATERIALS FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY.
I \ I ',
\ I
"<,\ " ' FOUNC OURIIIG COI1STRUCTIOI1 SH.~LL EE PROPERLY DISFCSEO
OF'SITE BY TRLCKI~IG TO THE ~IARII1A _NIO'ILL. SIGNED HARD COPY IS
'\ \
\
',
'
FINAL WORK PRODUCT.
\ \

\ CONSTRUCTION METHODS I TOOLS

VP.RIOUS cAIInTCOI S (ScCVF S, ~ICKS, SAWS, H.~"~I'RS, n"ll S,
\
\
\ E:<CETER~). AIID RcCUIRED SA'ET! EOJ FIIEIIl ALL WORK WLL BE
REVISIONS PROPOSED RETAINING WALL REPAIRS
' DO'IE FRO~I '1/ITHIN THE 1\RE,\ EN2LOSEJ EY THE EXISTIIIG
R'-~1111~1~ WP,II S. ~10 '1/0R< Will T~KF P A~' 011 TcF RFACH.
JATE BY REPLACEMENT OF DETEWORATED TIE RODS
\ \"" TeE WORK AREA IS V/E_L LA\IJINP.RD OF THE "EA~I "GH TIDE _IIIE 12-13-'3 S'H
10-1-15 JI1IS
PARCEI.'l 1 & 2, BLOCK B-18
VOLUloiE 24, RECORD OF SURVEYS, PAGE 47
I ~""
AIIJ rAR AGJV[ Tl [ MC.~I\ IIIGII '1/.HR [L[V~TION
11-2L-'5 sew APN: 009-423-001 & 002
4-26-"6 sew CTTY OF CARMH COUNTY o~ MOT\T~RI:Y STAT~ CF CAJ,JFORNTA

'I
I PRE-LOADING OF TENSION RODS
P'IOR TC PLA.CI~IG COI\CR[T[ rm Tl 1: T [ ROO CI1CASCMCIIT,
7-15-"6 sew
WELLINGTON HENDERSON
P R E P AR E D F C ~

tACH lit Rm SH~LL ol P't -LOAJtC IiJ COI/CliiS.'. c fOR

ELOIIG.~TION DUE TO IIORMAL SOL LCADS. By

ENLARGED PORTION OF SITE PLAN TIE RODS 1~1 SECTIOI1 'A", TIGHTEII TC ~3 'OOT -POUNJS
MONTEREY BAY ENGINEERS, INC.
TIE RODS 1~1 SECTIOI1 'B", TIGHTEN TO 32 FOOT -POUIIDS 607 CH,,R_ES .O.YE SU-E l U:U1~ ~99-/8~9 SE".SI DE C,\LIFORN 1/, S39 55
s:~.l-: 1/L" = 1'-o"
TIE RODS 1~1 SECTIOI1 'c", TIGHTEN TO 21 FOOT-POUIIDS SCA
1"=10
DATE
oc'!'o8~H. ~015
DRAW~I OY
sew
SHD C2
JOB 'k. '3-Qj2 oF -wo

66