The URL can be used to link to this page

14 Staff Report - Roberts Road BridgeMEETING DATE: 12/5/05 SOW N Op _ ITEM NO. COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT !ps G p.~~S DATE: DECEMBER 1, 2005 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM: DEBRA J. FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: REVIEW UPDATED REPORT ON THE ROBERTS ROAD BRIDGE AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review updated report on the Roberts Road bridge and provide direction to staff. Options for consideration include: 1. Bridge Closed A. Close the bridge to all traffic, including bicycles and pedestrians. Monitor the bridge for further deterioration, with the intention of repairing the bridge as needed to ensure the 9 continued operation of the utilities supported by the bridge. B. Keep the bridge closed to vehicular traffic with the addition of permanent, visually attractive barriers and signage. Monitor the bridge for further deterioration, with the intention of repairing the bridge as needed to ensure pedestrian and bicycle safety and to ensure the continued operation of the utilities supported by the bridge.. 2. Bridge Open A Open the bridge to all traffic, following needed repairs. B. Open the bridge to all traffic, following replacement of the bridge. 4'cr 6w,~~ PREPARED BY: OHN E. CURTIS 4irector of Parks and Public Works Reviewed by: V SJ Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Clerk Administrator Finance Community Development Revised: 12/1/05 1:50 pin Reformatted: 5/30/02 N:\B&E\COUNCIL REPORTS\roberts.rd.bridge.update. 12505.revisedV2.wpd MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: REVIEW UPDATED REPORT ON THE ROBERTS ROAD BRIDGE AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF - DECEMBER 1, 2005 BACKGROUND: The Roberts Road Bridge has been the discussion at two previous Town Council meetings, the first on September 20, 2004 and the second on May 2, 2005. The purpose of this report is to continue the earlier discussion with additional information that was requested of staff. This update includes the outcomes of communication with Caltrans concerning the structure and funding availability and meetings with specialty contractors to discuss cost and methodologies, and the review of a report commissioned by the Town on the historical significance of the bridge. As background to this report, the structure was constructed across Los Gatos Creek in 1918. It was designed to meet the standards of the early 1900's, which are well below today's complex criteria for seismic and hydraulic design. The condition of the bridge has deteriorated over the 87 years of its service and this is reflected in the inspection reports filed with the Town by Caltrans. The bridge has been closed to vehicles since January 17, 2005, following Council direction to close the structure. Council continued to direct the closure following the report in May, which discussed traffic impacts associated with the bridge closure. At the May meeting, Council requested staff to obtain information on the potential historical significance of the bridge, on cost estimates for repair to the bridge, and on the potential for funding for repair. This information is discussed below. DISCUSSION: Bridge Evaluation and Caltrans Plan of Action Caltrans is the State agency responsible for inspecting all local bridge structures on a regular basis. They provide a grading of each structure in each jurisdiction. All of the bridges in Los Gatos have received a satisfactory rating, with the exception of the Roberts Road Bridge. Caltrans found the bridge deficient in several categories as identified on their Bridge Inspection Report (Attachment 1). The primary deficiency identified by Caltrans is that the bridge is "scour critical,"' meaning that there has been significant deterioration of the center pier and the abutments due to water erosion. This erosion has increased measurably in recent years, as found in inspections in 2002 and 2004. Nearly 60% of bridge failures in United Sates are due to scouring of bridge foundations. The 2204 Caltrans report makes a number of recommendations to address the deficiencies either immediately (the mid- pier scour) or within two years (the remaining deficiencies. PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: REVIEW UPDATED REPORT ON THE ROBERTS ROAD BRIDGE AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF DECEMBER 1, 2005 For any bridge receiving an unsatisfactory rating, Caltrans requires the jurisdiction to provide a Plan of Action to achieve the necessary structural upgrades if the bridge is to be used for pedestrian, bicycle or vehicular traffic. Since Roberts Road Bridge is currently open to pedestrians and bicycles, Los Gatos must submit a Plan of Action to Caltrans, which is due in December, 2005. The Plan of Action for the continued operation of the bridge for vehicles is required to maintain the structure's eligibility for bridge replacement funding from State or Federal sources in the future.. The proposed Plan of Action (Attachment 2) was developed in consultation with Biggs-Cardosa, structural engineers and with Caltrans. The Plan calls for staff to monitor the bridge regularly,, checking for signs of continued degradation at the water line. Staff will also monitor water flow, obtaining a notification from the Santa Clara Valley Water District when heavy storm flows measured at the Lark Avenue station exceed 4800 cubic feet per second. If additional deterioration occurs resulting in settlement of the mid pier greater than 0.5 inches, the bridge will need to be closed to all traffic (i.e., pedestrians and bicycles) as a precautionary measure. Staff will take measurements in the next month to determine current elevations of the deck and footing and the same measurements will be taken after the storm flows to determine the amount of settlement, if any. Historical Evaluation The Roberts Road bridge is not currently listed on the Federal, State, or Town historic registers. During the hearings onthe bridge, Town Council requested information on the historical significance of the Roberts Road bridge. Staff retained Carey & Company, a consulting firm specializing in historic evaluations and research, to conduct a historical evaluation of the bridge. Such an evaluation would be required as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. Carey & Company completed a historic resource evaluation consistent with Federal and State methodologies (Attachment 1). The report concludes that the Roberts Road bridge does not meet the criteria for Federal or State historic designation. The bridge could be eligible for designation as a local historic landmark as specified in Section 29.80.230(x)(1) of the Town Code. The reportstates that the bridge is the oldest remaining bridge in Town and is "a good example of a regional, vernacular variation on the small, rural, early reinforced concrete highway bridge." The report also concludes the bridge's association with the transportation and roadway development period in the Town's history and its construction type makes the bridge eligible for local designation. Local designation would not make the bridge eligible for State or Federal grants for repair. PAGE 4 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: REVIEW UPDATED REPORT ON THE ROBERTS ROAD BRIDGE AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF DECEMBER 1, 2005 Under CEQA, the demolition of a historically significant structure is typically a significant environmental impact. The courts have held that standard mitigation measures, including design of a replacement structure to reflect the historic elements of the previous structure, do not mitigate the impact of the demolition. Therefore, 'an environmental impact report and adoption of a statement of overriding considerations are usually required to demolish a historically significant structure. These steps would be required only if the Council designates the structure as a local historic bridge. Bridge Deficiencies and Cost Estimates As identified in the Caltrans report, the bridge has cracks and spalls in nearly all concrete elements of the bridge, including the mid pier, the abutments, the deck and soffit, and the railing. As noted previously, the most significant deficiency is the scouring of the mid-pier. Staff requested Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. to review the condition of the bridge and provide a written estimate of the cost of repair of the key deficiencies. These estimates are provided in Attachment 4. and summarized below. The estimates do not include environmental review, design costs, construction management and engineering fees, which would add approximately 25% to the total estimates. The estimates are based on inspections of visible elements of the structure and on the consultant's assumptions regarding the scope of repair; thus the estimates could change depending on actual conditions and on the ultimate specifications for repair. Mid Pier The mid pier of this bridge is located in the middle of Los Gatos Creek and there has been substantial erosion and scouring of this foundation. This pier is a key component of this bridge and its failure will cause the bridge to collapse. Repairs to this mid pier and the foundation will require excavation and construction in the creels bed, which is a difficult task due to the unknown creek bed soil conditions. This work would also require cooperation from other regulatory `agencies (e.g., Regional Water Quality Control Board, Corps of Engineers, Department of Fish and Game, etc.), potentially, generating the need for other mitigations. The cost for repair of this mid-pier foundation is estimated to range from $165,000 to $330,000, depending on the scope of the repair. This repair work will generally provide a large concrete perimeter footing that will extend from the bottom of foundation to several feet above the water line. PAGE 5 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: REVIEW UPDATED REPORT ON THE ROBERTS ROAD BRIDGE AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF DECEMBER 1, 2005 Abutments The bridge abutments have experienced deterioration throughout, caused by failure and aging of concrete and widespread cracking. A close inspection of the abutments show voids and holes in the concrete with severe cracking and spalling of the concrete. The consultants noticed an absence of reinforcing steel below the concrete surface. It is not clear if this is an isolated problem, or if it exists throughout the structure, which would increase the cost estimate for repair. This type of repair would basically reface the abutment with new concrete and fill in the cracks and voids. The estimate to repair the bridge abutments based on existing information is $330,000. Deck There are a number of areas on the bridge deck and soffit which have failed concrete and the reinforcing steel is exposed. The estimated cost to repair the deck and soffit deficiencies is $165,000. Concrete Railing The existing railing for this bridge has deteriorated and been damaged over the years. Although the railing height has not presented problems for bridge users, the railing does not meet today's safety standards for height and it would be prudent to retrofit it. The estimated cost to replace this barrier with anew concrete barrier is $77,000. There are design alternatives for repairing the railing and/or increasing its height, without replacing it. If the Council would like to pursue repair of the railing, staff could bring forward design alternatives that maintain the integrity of the structure while meeting today's safety standards. Bridge Replacement For comparison purposes, a new structure can be designed and constructed for an estimated $1.5 million. This estimate assumes a scope of work that would remove the existing bridge, provide for the continued presence of utilities located on the bridge, perform the environmental study that must precede the work, and construct the new bridge. This estimate is based on today's costs of labor and materials. Options and Associated Costs for Consideration The options available to the Town regarding the Roberts Road Bridge are as follows: 1,. Bridge Closed A. Close the bridge to all traffic, including bicycles and pedestrians. Monitor the bridge for further deterioration, with the intention of repairing the bridge as needed to ensure the continued operation of the utilities supported by the bridge. PAGE 6 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: REVIEW UPDATED REPORT ON THE ROBERTS ROAD BRIDGE AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF DECEMBER 1, 2005 B. Keep the bridge closed to vehicular traffic with the addition of permanent, visually attractive barriers and signage. Monitor the bridge for further deterioration, with the intention of repairing the bridge as needed to ensure pedestrian and bicycle safety and to ensure the continued operation of the utilities supported by the bridge. 2. Bridge Open A Open the bridge to all traffic, following needed repairs. B. Open the bridge to all traffic, following replacement of the bridge. Following are the cost estimates associated with each of above options. 1. A. Close the bridge to all traffic, including bicycles and pedestrians. Monitor the bridge for further deterioration, with the intention of repairing the bridge as needed to ensure the continued operation of the utilities supported by the bridge. As noted earlier, the proposed Plan, of Action calls for the bridge to be closed to all traffic except pedestrians and bicycles. The Plan calls for monitoring bridge conditions, with the requirement to close the bridge to all traffic including pedestrians and bicycles if significant deterioration continues. If the bridge is closed to all traffic, there remains the necessity to support the utilities that are carried by the bridge. Repairs to the bridge mid-pier and to the abutments would be necessary for this purpose, at an estimated cost of $495,000 to $660,000. In addition, an ample barrier would be needed to prevent traffic and pedestrians from entering the bridge, at an estimated cost of $20,000, bringing the total estimate to $515,000 to $680,000. It is not known when the need for repair or an alternative structure would be triggered under this option due to uncertainty about the rate of degradation. 1. B. Keep the bridge closed to vehicular traffic with the addition of permanent, visually attractive barriers. Monitor the bridge for further deterioration, with the intention of repairing the bridge as needed to ensure pedestrian and bicycle safety and to ensure the continued operation of the utilities supported by the bridge. While the immediate plan is to monitor deterioration of bridge conditions, it is recommended that repairs to the mid-pier and abutments be programmed to prevent failure of the bridge in the future. In addition, it is recommended that the railings be replaced or repaired to meet current safety standards, while maintaining the architectural appearance of the existing bridge. PAGE 7 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: REVIEW UPDATED REPORT ON THE ROBERTS ROAD BRIDGE AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF DECEMBER 1, 2005 In addition, if the bridge continues to be closed to vehicles, permanent and visually-acceptable closure barriers would need to be installed.* Repairs to the mid-pier and abutments are estimated at $495,000 to $660,000, permanent barriers are estimated at $10,000 to $20,000, and replacement of the railings is estimated at $77,000 (depending on the design alternative for the railings, this cost could be greater). The total estimate of this option is $582,000 to $757,000. 2. A. Open the bridge to all traffic, following needed repairs. To open the bridge to all traffic as it was operating before the closure, it is recommended that all the repairs discussed earlier'in the report (i.e., mid-pier, abutments, deck and soffit, and railings) be made. The estimated cost for this option is $707,000 to $902,000. A phased approach to opening the bridge while making the repairs would be possible. This option would result in a bridge that is structurally stable, but not up to current design standards regarding level of seismic protection, width, and sight distance considerations. Maintenance and repair costs are likely to be greater with a repaired bridge that continues to have a pier in the middle of the creek than the costs for a single span bridge. Staff also considered an option of opening the bridge to all traffic except heavy vehicles, as was mentioned at a previous Council meeting. This option is not presented for consideration because it does not offer a significant savings or reduction to the deterioration of the bridge. With this option, the repairs to the deck and soffit ($165,000) would not need to be done immediately, however, they would still need to be done at some point in the near future. In addition, the solution of a height barrier, which would be the best-way to limit heavy vehicles, would not prevent all heavy vehicles from entering the bridge. 2. B. Open the bridge to all traffic, following replacement of the bridge. In previous staff reports, staff presented Council with the option of replacing the bridge with a new bridge, including design elements replicating the current architecture. This option would result in a bridge that meets current seismic and structural standards, with improved sight distance, vehicle load capacity, and safety features. As noted in a previous staff report,, the width of a new bridge would accommodate two lanes, however, it could be striped for one lane if desired. In addition, a single span bridge would mitigate the ongoing issue of scouring on the mid-pier structure. The estimated cost for a replacement bridge is $1.5 million. PAGE 8 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: REVIEW UPDATED REPORT ON THE ROBERTS ROAD BRIDGE AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF DECEMBER 1, 2005 Funding Options In researching the possibilities for grant funding, staff has located only the possibility of funding for bridge replacement through Caltrans. As the structure is not deemed to meet State or Federal standards for historical designation, funding is not available for historical restoration. Caltrans Funding Staff has investigated sources of funding from Caltrans for performing repairs to the Roberts Road bridge. The key criteria for using Federal or State grants for rehabilitation of a bridge is to bring that structure to current standards. Caltrans grants require that the entire structure be brought to current standards. Due to its age and range of non standard features, the Roberts Road bridge would not qualify, for these grants because a rehabilitation would not meet the Caltrans test for cost- effectiveness based on staff s discussions with Caltrans. If a decision is made to replace the bridge, the Town can apply to Caltrans for grant funding for the replacement. A Caltrans grant would cover 88% of the cost for anew bridge with local funds needed for the remainder. Caltrans grants are on a first come, first served basis. Based on staff discussions with Caltrans and on the condition of Roberts Road bridge, there is a high probability that the Town would receive a Caltrans grant for the replacement of the bridge. Aesthetic elements could be incorporated into the design to make the new bridge compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods and natural features. Caltrans grant funds can be used to incorporate architectural features in the new bridge, as long as such treatments are 'not too extensive and are similar to the current structure. The criteria that Caltrans uses for aesthetic treatments of a new bridge is limited to 5% of the cost of the project. Any costs beyond the 5% are the responsibility of the local jurisdiction. CONCLUSION: This report presents further information regarding the Roberts Road bridge, including Caltrans requirements for continuing operation of the bridge; the historical significance of the bridge; costs to repair or replace the bridge; options for consideration and their associated costs;' and funding availability. Staff is seeking Council feedback and direction on the following options: PAGE 9 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: REVIEW UPDATED REPORT ON THE ROBERTS ROAD BRIDGE AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF DECEMBER 1, 2005 1. Bridge Closed A. Close the bridge to all traffic, including bicycles and pedestrians. Monitor the bridge for further deterioration, with the intention of repairing the bridge as needed to ensure the integrity of the utilities supported by the bridge. B. Keep the bridge closed to vehicular traffic with the addition of permanent, visually attractive barriers and signage. Monitor the bridge for further deterioration, with the intention of repairing the bridge as needed to ensure pedestrian and bicycle safety and to ensure the continued operation of the utilities supported by the bridge. 2. Bridge Open A Open the bridge to all traffic, following needed repairs. B. Open the bridge to all traffic, following replacement of the bridge. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: This agenda item is not defined as a project under CEQA. As discussed above, demolition and replacement of the Roberts Road bridge would be subj ect to CEQA review. If the Council designates the structure as a local historic bridge, an EIR is typically required for demolition of such a structure. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impacts associated with each of the options are presented in the staff report. If the Cotuicil directs staff to repair the bridge in any of the options, funding would need to be programmed in the FY 2006-2011 Capital Improvement Program. Distribution: Peggy Willey, 134 Ohlone Court, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Anne Lamborn, 7 Monroe Court, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Roberts Road Homeowners Association, Geri Miller, 327 Oak Meadow Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Kim Gavin, 132 Ohlone Court, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Attachments: 1. Caltrans Bridge Inspection Reports 2. Caltrans Plan of Action report 3. Historic Evaluation Report 4. Cost Estimates from Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc., May 10, 2005 5. Emails and petitions from residents . STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCH\VARZENEGGER, Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF MAINTENANCE a STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE AND INVESTIGATIONS 1801 30th Street, MS #9-1/9i P. 0. BOX 168041 ur power! SACRAMENTO, CA 95816-8041 Be energy efficient! PHONE (916) 227-8631 FAX (916) 227-8357 July 23, 2004 Mr. John Curtis Director of Building & Engineering Town of Los Gatos P0Box949 Los Gatos, CA 95031 Dear Mr. Curtis: In accordance with Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations (Federal Highway Act), Caltrans Structure Maintenance and Investigations performed biennial inspections of bridges under your jurisdiction. Enclosed are copies of Bridge Inspection Reports for the structures noted on the attached transmittal sheet. These reports contain descriptions of physical changes to the structures since the last inspection, recoi=endations for work to be done, or additional information not recorded in the previous Bridge Reports. Please direct questions regarding any structure to Charlie Ineichen at (916) 227-8016. Sincerely, THO. J. HA.RRINGTON Office Chief Structure Maintenance & Investigations - North Enclosures JUL z 8 2004 Pp~ j~Ur~~OS -A7-Os ~Lo~; DfPr °caltrans improves mobility across California ° ATTACHMENT 1 t... DEPARTNrAW OF 'YMMSPORTATION AW Structure Maintenance a Investigat:.ons azfbww Bridge inspection Report STRVCT[1RE NNW, LOS GATOS CREEK CON97.'RIICTION INB'ORMATION Bridge Number Facility Carried: Location City Inspection Date Inspection Type Routine Group A XJ L- Page. 1 of 4 3700343 ROBERTS RD 0.10 MI S BLOSSOM HILL RD LOS GATOS 01/1.3/2004 Underwater Special Other I : L Year Built . 1918 Skew (degrees): 0 Year Widened: N/A No, of Joints 0 Length (m) . 25.9 No. of Hinges 0 Structure Description:Continuous RC 'T• beam (2) with RC buttress abutments and RC pier wall, all founded on spread footings. Span Configuration :2 Q 12.5 m LOAD CAPACITY' AND RXT=S Design Live Load: OTHER OR UNKNOWN . Inventory Rating: 12.7 metric tons operating Rating: 19.9 metric tons Permit Rating XXXXX Pasting Load Type 3 N/A TMRCR ION U STRUCTffRB Deck x-Section: 0.38 m r, 6.1 m, 0.38 m r Total Width: 6.9 m Rail Description: RC wall Min. Vertical Clearance: Unimpaired Calculation Method: LOAD FACTOR Calculation Method: LOAD FACTOR Type 3S2 N/A Net width: 6.1 m DESCRIPTION UNDER STRUGT-M Channel Description: Earth, unimproved HISTORY Type 3-3 N/A No. of Lanes: 1 Rail Code : 0000 As per the Hydraulics investigation on -6/3/2002 this bridge is scour critical with the potential scour elevation at Pier 2 extending below the bottom of the footing. As of the recent routine inspection on 1113/2004, no work has been performed to address the scour potential. This.Condition should be immediately addressed by the local agency. The local agency is to provide adequate scour countermeasures to ensure the stability of the bridge. REVISIONS The following ELI Elements and/or NBI Coding has been modified to accurately codify the structure: Element 110, Open Girder/Beam, has.had 45m downgraded from Condition State 1 to Condition State 2. Element 331, Reinforced Concrete Bridge Rail, has been downgraded to Condition State 3. CONDITION OF STRUCTURE As previously reported, there are many large spalls and moderate size cracks with efflorescence in the face of the east abutment. There is an outstanding work recommendation from 1/18/200 to remove any unsound concrete and patch the spans that should be completed. Also as previously reported, there are many moderate size cracks in the face of the west abutment with no efflorescence. There is a full height vertical crack measuring 1/8' to 1/4' on the SW Wingwall, approximately 2 meters off the face of Abutment 3. Printed on: Monday 03/01/2004 07:46 AM 37C0343/AAAD/3914 CIibPDF - www.fastio.com C~. Page 2 of 4 As previously reported, there ara spalls with efflorescence evident throughout the soffit- A few of these spalls have been previously patched but the patches are beginning to fail with several exhibiting exposed and corroded reinforcement. There is an outstanding work recommendation from 1/18/2000 to remove any unsound concrete and patch the spalls that should be completed. Overall the general quality of the concrete in this structure is poor with the concrete exhibiting numerous rock pockets and poor consolidation. As previously reported, the northeast corner of the bridge rail, including a post, is severely cracked and spalled. There is an outstanding work recommendation from 1/18/2000 to repair the damaged portion of the bridge rail that should be completed. The overall bridge rail in general is in poor condition with numerous cracks and small spalls throughout the its length. The top of the footing of Pier 2 is exposed approximately 1-2-. There is also some flow deterioration on the face of Pier 2 at approximately 3-4' from grade. The scour visible at Pier 2 is not particularly significant at this time. However the above cited Hydraulics report determined this bridge to be scour critical, with potential flows extending the scour below the bottom of the Pier 2 footing. At the time of this investigation, the flow from the channel was strong yet shallow and was not reaching the pier wall with the flow concentrated in the main span. The water was flowing approximately 21 below the lowest point on the pier wall. Overall this structure remains is in generally fair condition as of this investigation. SIGNS -One Lane Bridge" signs are present at the approaches. This structure is structurally deficient, scour critical and has a sufficiency rating of 31.2. There are also numerous outstanding work recommendations. in lieu of completing the work recommendations, a replacement bridge should be considered at this time. However, if a replacement bridge is considered, interim measures will still need to address the outstanding work recommendations, particularly the scour mitigation. ,ELEMENT INSPECTION RATSNG.9 , F ElemElement Description 01 13 'Concrete Deck - unprotected w/ AC 1Overlay 01 110 Reinforced Conc Open Girder/Beam 01 210 Reinforced Conc Pier Wall 101 215 Reinforced Conc Abutment 01 331 Reinforced Cone Bridge Railing 101 359 Soffit of Concrete Deck or Slab Env Total Units Qty in each Condition State Qty St. 1 St. 2 St. 3 St. 4 St. 5) 3 170 sq.m_ 170 0 0 0 0 2 51 m. 0 45 6 0 i 3 7 m. 0 0 7 0 0 3 14 m. 0 0 14 0 0 3 52 M. 0 52 0 0 1 0 2 1 ea. 0 0 1 0 OJ RecDate: 01/13/2004 Estcost: As per the Hydrualics investigation on Action : Sub-Scour Mitiga StrTarget: 1 YEAR 613/2002 this bridge is scour critical with Work By: LOCAL AGENCY DistTarget: the potential scour elevation at Pier 2 Status PROPOSED : extending below the bottom of the footing. As of the recent routine inspection on 1/13/2004, no work has been performed to address the scour potential. This condition should be immediately addressed by the local agency. The local agency is to provide adequate scour countermeasures to ensure the stability of the bridge. Printed on:Monday 03/01/2004 07:46 AM CIibP©F - www.fastio.com 37C0343/AAAD/3914 Page 3 of 4 RecDate: 01118/2000 Action : Work By: LOCAL AGENCY Status : PROPOSED RecDate: 01/18/2000 Action : Work By: LOCAL AGENCY Status : PROPOSED RecDate: 01/18/2000 Action : Work By: LOCAL AGENCY Status : PROPOSED Inspect ~=~~uDWlG~Gy~ Z o C 61330 m s EXP 06-30.2005 Estcost: Repair the damaged portion of the bridge StrTarget: 2 YEARS rail at the northeast corner of the DistTarget: structure. EA: EstCost: Remove any unsound concrete and patch the StrTarget: 2 YEARS spalls found in the soffit of both spans. DistTarget: EA: EstCost: Remove unsound concrete and patch the spalls StrTarget: 2 YEARS in the east abutment DistTarget: EA: Printed on: Monday 03/01/2004 07:46 AM 37CO343/AAAD/3914 CHI)POF - www.fastio.com Page 4 of 4 STRIIC'.f`= INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL REPORT. rkxx.*rr*.r**... IDENTIFICATION raka**r*.raaar. (1) STATE NAME- CALIFORNIA 069 10) STRUCTURE NUMBER 37CO34) (5) INVENTORY ROUTS (ON/UNDER)- ON 150000000 (2) HIGHWAY AGENCY DISTRICT 04 (3) COUNTY CODE 085 (4) PLACE CODE 44112 (6) FEATURE INTERSECTED- LOS GATOS CREEK (7) FACILITY CARRIED- ROBERTS RD 19) LOCATION- 0.10 MI S BLOSSOM }JILL RD (11) MILEPOINT/KILOMETERPOINT 0- (12) BASE HIGHWAY NETWORK- NOT ON NET 0 (13) LRS INVENTORY ROUTE & SUBROUTE (16) LATITUDE 37 DEG 13 MIN 55 SEC (17) LONGITUDE 121 DEC 58 MIN 22 SEC (98) BORDER BRIDGE STATE CODE i SHARE • (99) BORDER BRIDGE STRUCTURE NUMBER STRUCTURE TYPE AND MATERIAL (43) STRUCTURE TYPE MAIN:MATERIAL- CONCRETE CONT TYPE- TEE BEAM CODE 204 (44) STRUCTURE TYPE APPR:MATERIAL- NOT APPLICABLE TYPE- NOT APPLICABLE CODE (45) NUMBER OF SPANS IN MAIN UNIT 2 (46) NUMBER OF APPROACH SPANS 0 (107) DEC)t STRUCTURE TYPE- CIP CONCRETE CODE 1 (108) WEARING SURFACE / PROTECTIVE SYSTEM: A) TYPE OF WEARING SURFACE- BITUMINOUS CODE 6 B) TYPE OF MEMBRANE- NONE CODE 0 C) TYPE OF DECK PROTECTION- NONE CODE 0 r*...... 4.....* AGE AND SERVICE +tr ta.r..rrrrr• (27) YEAR BUILT 1918 (106) YEAR RECONSTRUCTED 0000 (42) TYPE OF SERVICE: ON- HIGHWAY 1 UNDER- WATERWAY 5 (28) LANES:ON STRUCTURE 01 UNDER STRUCTURE 00 (29) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 1664 (30) YEAR OF ADT 1985 (1091 TRUCK ADT 1 $ (19) BYPASS, DETOUR LENGTH 2 RM **•r.........*.. GEOMETRIC DATA .•...••rr»r....+ (48) LENGTH OF MAXIMUM SPAN 12.5 M (49) STRUCTURE LENGTH 25.9 M (50) CURB OR SIDEWALK: LEFT 0.0 M RIGHT 0.0 M (51) BRIDGE ROADWAY WIDTH CURB TO CURB 6.1 M (52) DECK WIDTH OUT TO OUT 6.9 M (32) APPROACH ROADWAY WIDTH (W/SHOULDERS) 6.1 M (33) BRIDGE MEDIAN-. NO MEDIAN 0 (34) SKEW 0 DEG (35) STRUCTURE FLARED NO (10) INVENTORY ROUTE MIN VERT CLEAR 99.99 M (47) INVMrrORY ROUTE TOTAL HORIZ CLEAR 6.1 M (53) MIN VERT CLEAR OVER BRIDGE RDWY 99.99 M (54) MIN VERT UMDERCLEAR REF- NOT H/RR 0.00 M (55) MIN LAT UNDERCLEAR RT REF- NOT H/RR 99.9 M (56) MIN LAT UNDERCLEAR LT 0.0 M aaa***.... *r*-- NAVIGATION DATA **r.*. rt .*.xw•• (38) NAVIGATION CONTROL- NO CONTROL CODE 0 (111) PIER PROTECTION- NOT REQUIRED CODE 1 (39) NAVIGATION VERTICAL CLEARANCE 0-0 M (116) VERT-LIFT BRIDGE NAV MIN VERT CLEAR M (40) NAVIGATION HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE O.D M Printed On: Monday 03/01/2004 07:46 AM ...r rraarrr*****rw.*+•*r w**••wa »*tr*•*rr.aaraa* SUFFICIENCY RATING = - 31.2 STATUS STRUCTURALLY DEFICIENT HEALTH INDEX = . 54.0 PAINT CONDITION INDEX c N/A aaa»raa.xrrr• CLASSIFICATION r~xr.xra•.... CODE (112) NBIS BRIDGE LENGTH- YES Y (104) HIGHWAY SYSTEM- NOT ON NHS 0 (26) FUNCTIONAL CLASS- LOCAL URBAN 19 (100) DEFENSE HIGHWAY- NOT STRAHNET 0 (101) PARALLEL STRUCTURE- NONE EXISTS N (102) DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC- 2 WAY 2 (103) TEMPORARY STRUCTURE- (105) FED.LANDS HWY- (110) DESIGNATED NATIONAL NETWORK - NOT ON NET 0 (20) TOLL- ON FREE ROAD 3 (21) MAINTAIN- CITY OR MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 04 (22) OWNER- CITY OR MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 04 (37) HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE- NOT ELIGIBLE 5 CONDITION .......r..... COOE (58) DECK 5 (59) SUPERSTRUCTURE 5 (60) SUBSTRUCTURE 3 161) CHANNEL & CHANNEL PROTECTION 5 162) CULVERTS N LOAD RATING AND POSTING CODE (31) DESIGN LOAD- OTHER OR UNKNOWN 0 (63) OPERATING RATING METHOD- LOAD FACTOR 1 (64) OPERATING RATING- 19.9 (65) INVENTORY RATING METHOD- LOAD FACTOR 1 (66) INVENTORY RATING- 12.7 (70) BRIDGE POSTING- EQUAL TO OR ABOVE LEGAL LOADS 5 (41) STRUCTURE OPEN, POSTED OR CLOSED- A DESCRIPTION- OPEN, NO RESTRICTION **4r6 r.......*- APPRAISAL r4r-*vu........ CODE (67) STRUCTURAL EVALUATION 3 (68) DECK GEOMETRY 2 169) UNDERCLEARANCES, VERTICAL & HORIZONTAL N 171) WATER ADEQUACY 5 (72) APPROACH ROADWAY ALIGNMENT 3 (36) TRAFFIC SAFETY FEATURES 0 000 (113) SCOUR CRITICAL BRIDGES 3 r»»rkrr*.r•r PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS (75) TYPE OF WORK- REPLACE FOR DEFICIENCY CODE 31 (76) LENGTH OF STRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT 34.906M (94) BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT COST $289,000 (95) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT COST $29.000 (96) TOTAL PROJECT COST $434,000 (97) YEAR OF IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATE 1999 (114) FUTURE ADT 2100 (115) YEAR OF FUTURE ADT 2010 •***r.arar...•... INSPECTIONS .r kk*...* {90) INSPECTION DATE D1/04(91) FREQUENCY 24 MO (92) CRITICAL FEATURE INSPECTION: (93) CFI DATE A) FRACTURE CRIT DETAIL- NO -IMO A) 0I/O1 B) UNDERWATER INSP- NO -1 NO 3) C) OTHER SPECIAL INSP- NO MO C) 37CO343/AAAD/3914 C(ibPDF - www.fastio.com DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Bridge Number 37c0343 Structure Maintenance & Investigations Facility Carried: ROBERTS RD Location 0.10 MI S BLOSSOM HILL RD City LOS GATOS GW~w v Inspection Date 22-JAN-02 Inspection Type Bridge Inspection Report Routine Group A Underwater Special Other a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Name LOS GATOS CREEK CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION Year Built 1918 Skew (degrees): 0 Year Widened N/A No, of Joints 0 Length (m) 25.9 No. of Hinges c 0 Description of Structure : Continuous RC "T" beam (2) with RC buttress abutments and RC pier wall, all founded on spread footings. Span Configuration : 2 9 12.5 m LOAD CAPACITY AND RATINGS Design Live Load : OTHER OR UNKNOWN Inventory Rating 12.7 metric tons Calculation Method LOAD FACTOR Operating Rating 19.9 metric tons Calculation Method LOAD FACTOR Permit Rating XXXXX Posting Load Type 3 N/A english tons Type 3S2 N/A english tons Type 3-3 N/A english tons DESCRIPTION ON STRUCTURE Bridge width 0.38 m r, 6.1 m, 0.38 m r Total width 6.9 in Net Width : 6.10 m No. of Lanes 1 Rail Description : RC wall Rail Code 0000 Min. vertical Clearance : Unimpaired DESCRIPTION UNDER STRUCTURE Channel Description : Earth, unimproved REVISIONS The Condition State of the entire quantity of Element #13, "Concrete Deck - Unprotected w/AC Overlay", has been changed to state 1 from state 3 to properly reflect field conditions. Element was previously incorrectly coded. The Condition State of the 45 meters of Element #110, "Reinforced Concrete Open Girder/Beam", has been changed to state 1 from state 3 to properly reflect field conditions. Due to several locations of exposed reinforcement, 6 meters of Element #110 are left in Condition state 3 until repairs are completed. Element #359, "Soffit of Concrete Deck or Slab", has been upgraded to state 3 from state 4 to properly reflect field conditions. Element was previously incorrectly coded. CONDITION OF STRUCTURE There are many large spalls and moderate size cracks with efflorescence in the face of the east abutment..-`' There are many moderate size cracks in the face of the west abutment (no efflorescence). Spalls with efflorescence are evident throughout the soffit. A few of these spalls were previously patched but patches are beginning to fail with several exhibiting exposed reinforcement. The general quality of the concrete in this structure is poor with concrete exhibiting numerous rock pockets and poor consolidation. Repair any unsound and spalled concrete as per previous work recommendations dated 01/18/00. The northeast corner of the bridge rail, including a post, is severely cracked and spalled_ Repair damaged rail as per previous work recommendation dated 01/18/00. This structure remains is fair condition as of this investigation. SIGNS FF,~ 1 9 2~~2 "One Lane Bridge" signs are present at the approaches. Printed on : 07-FEB-2002 01:18:31 PM Br:37C0343 Dt:22-JAN-02 Key:AAAB d.' ELEMENT LEVEL INSPECTION RATINGS # Elem Element Description No. Env Total Units Quantity St. 1 Qty in each St. 2 Condition State St. 3 St. 4 St. 5 01 13 Concrete Deck - Unprotected w/ 3 170sq.m. 170 0 0 0 0 AC Overlay 01 110 Reinforced Conc Open Girder/Beam 2 51M. 45 0 6 0 01 210 Reinforced Ccnc Pier Wall 4 7m. 0 0 7 0 0 01 215 Reinforced Conc Abutment 4 14 in. 0 0 14 0 0 01 331 Reinforced Conc Bridge Railing 3 52 in. 0 52 0 0 0 D1 359 Soffit of Concrete Deck or slab 4 lea. 0 0 1 0 0 WORK RECOMMENDATIONS Remove unsound concrete and patch the spalls in the east abutment Item# Rec. Date Work By Work Id. Prog. Method 1 18-JAN-2000 City Agency 40343X00018X Remove any unsound concrete and patch the spalls found in the soffit of both spans. Item# Rec. Date Work By Work Id.. Prog_ Method 2 18-JAN-2000 City Agency 40343X00018X Repair the damaged portion of the bridge rail at the northeast corner of the structure- Item# Rec. Date Work By Work Id.. Prog. Method 3 18-JAN-2000 City Agency 4D343X00018X Inspected By : Brad Walter Registered Civil Engineer Cost Cost Cost 9 2002 Printed on : 07-FEB-2002 01:18:31 PM Br:37C0343 Dt:22-JAN-02 Key:1,.AP3 STRUCTURE INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL REPORT - x.xx**x*xxxxxxxxxxxxx* IDENTIFICATION xxxxxxxx* *xxxxxxx (1) STATE NAME - CALIFORNIA 069 (B) STRUCTURE NUMBER 37CO343 (5) INVENTORY ROUTE (ON /UNDER) - ON 1 50 000000 (2) HIGHWAY AGENCY DISTRICT 04 (3) COUNTY CODE 085 (4) PLACE CODE 44112 (6) FEATURE INTERSECTED - LOS GATOS CREEK (7) FACILITY CARRIED - ROBERTS RD (9) LOCATION - 0.10 MI S BLOSSOM HILL RD (11) MILEPOINT/KILOMETERPOINT 0 (12) BASE HIGHWAY NETWORK - NOT ON NET 0 (13) IRS INVENTORY ROUTE & SUBROUTE (16) LATITUDE 37 DEG 13 MIN 55 SEC (17) LONGITUDE 121 DEG 58 MIN 22 SEC (98) BORDER BRIDGE STATE CODE SHARE £ (99) BORDER BRIDGE STRUCTURE NUMBER x****xxx*xxxxxx STRUCTURE TYPE AND MATERIAL xxx ***xxx*a (43) STRUCTURE TYPE MAIN: MATERIAL - CONCRETE CONT TYPE - TEE BEAM CODE 2 04 (44) STRUCTURE TYPE APPR: MATERIAL - OTHER TYPE - OTHER CODE 000 (45) NUMBER OF SPANS IN MAIN UNIT' 2 (46) NUMBER OF APPROACH SPANS 0 (107) DECK STRUCTURE TYPE CIP CONCRETE CODE 1 (108) WEARING SURFACE / PROTECTIVE SYSTEM: A) TYPE OF WEARING SURFACE - BITUMINOUS CODE 6 B) TYPE OF MEMBRANE - NONE CODE 0 C) TYPE OF DECK PROTECTION - NONE CODE 0 xx+x*xxxxxx** xxx+*** AGE AND SERVICE.**x***xx* *****xxx (27) YEAR BUILT 1918 (106) YEAR RECONSTRUCTED 0000 (42) TYPE OF SERVICE: ON - HIGHWAY 1 UNDER - WATERWAY - 5 (28) LANES: ON STRUCTURE 01 UNDER STRUCTU R 00 (29) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 1664 (30) YEAR OF ADT 1998 (109) TRUCK ADT 18 (19) BYPASS, DETOUR LENGTH 2 KM GEOMETRIC DATA *****xxxxxxx xxxxxxx (48) LENGTH OF MAXIMUM SPAN 12.5 M (49) STRUCTURE LENGTH 25.9 M (50) CURB OR SIDEWALK: LEFT 0 M RIGHT 014 (51) BRIDGE ROADWAY WIDTH CURB TO CURB 6.1 M (52) DECK WIDTH OUT TO OUT 6.9 M (32) APPROACH ROADWAY WIDTH (W/SHOULDERS) 6.1m (33) BRIDGE MEDIAN - NO MEDIAN 0 (34) SKEW 0 DEG (35) STRUCTURE FLARED NO (10) INVENTORY ROUTE MIN VERT CLEAR 99.99 M (47) INVENTORY ROUTE TOTAL HORIZ CLEAR 6.1 M (53) MIN VERT CLEAR OVER BRIDGE RDWY 99.99 M (54) MIN VERT UNDERCLEAR REF - NOT H/RR Om (55) MIN LAT UNDERCLEAR RT REF -NOT HIRE. 99.9 M (56) MIN LAT UNDERCLEAR LT 0 M NAVIGATION DATA *******xxxx x****x* (38) NAVIGATION CONTROL - NO CONTROL CODE 0 (111) PIER PROTECTION - NOT REQUIRED CODE 1 (39) NAVIGATION VERTICAL CLEARANCE 0 M (116) VERT-LIFT BRIDGE NAV YIN VERT CLEAR M (40) NAVIGATION HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE 0 SUFFICIENCY RATING = 31.2 • `-STATUS = STRUCTURALLY DEFICIENT HEALTH INDEX = 67.4 CLASSIFICATION CODE (112) NBIS BRIDGE LENGTH - YES Y (104) HIGHWAY SYSTEM - NOT ON NHS 0 (26) FUNCTIONAL CLASS - LOCAL URBAN 19 (100) DEFENSE HIGHWAY - NOT STRAHNET 0 (101) PARALLEL STRUCTURE - NONE EXISTS N (102) DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC - 2 WAY 2 (103) TEMPORARY STRUCTURE - (105) FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY - (110) DESIGNATED NATIONAL NETWORK - NOT ON NET 0 (20) TOLL - ON FREE ROAD 3 (21) MAINTAIN -CITY OR MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 4 (22) OWNER - CITY OR MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 4 (37) HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE - NOT ELIGIBLE 5 x****xxxxxx*xxxxxx CONDITION xxx**x*xxxxxxxxxxxx CODE (58) DECK 5 (59) SUPERSTRUCTURE 5 (60) SUBSTRUCTURE 3 (61) CHANNEL & CHANNEL PROTECTION 5 (62) CULVERTS N xxx*zxzzxxx* LOAD RATING AND POSTING CODE (31) DESIGN LOAD - OTHER OR UNKNOWN 0 (63) OPERATING RATING METHOD - LOAD FACTOR 1 (64) OPERATING RATING - 19.9 (65) INVENTORY RATING METHOD - LOAD FACTOR 1 (66) INVENTORY RATING - 12.7 (70) BRIDGE POSTING - Equal to or above legal loads 5 (41) STRUCTURE OPEN, POSTED OR CLOSED - A DESCRIPTION - OPEN, NO RESTRICTION x**xxxxxx***xxxxx* APPRAISAL *****xxxxxxxxxx* *xri CODE (67) STRUCTURAL EVALUATION 3 (68) DECK GEOMETRY 2 (69) UNDERCLEARANCES, VERTICAL & HORIZONTAL N (71) WATER ADEQUACY 5 (72) APPROACH ROADWAY ALIGNMENT 3 (36) TRAFFIC SAFETY FEATURES 0000 (113) SCOUR CRITICAL BRIDGES 6 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS (75) TYPE OF WORK - REPLACE FOR DEFICIENCY CODE 31 (76) LENGTH OF STRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT 34.906 M (94) BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT COST $289,000 (95) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT COST $29,000 (96) TOTAL PROJECT COST $434,000 (97) YEAR OF IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATE 1999 (114) FUTURE ADT 2100 (115) YEAR OF FUTURE ADT 2010 xxxxxxx*xxxxxx*xxxxx INSPECTIONS xxxxxxx*xxxxx x*xxxxxx (90) INSPECTION DATE 01/02 (91) FREQUENCY 24 MO (92) CRITICAL FEATURE INSPECTION: (93) CFI DATE A) FRACTURE CRIT DETAIL - NO -1 MO A) 01/01 B) UNDERWATER INSP - NO -1 MO B) - C) OTHER SPECIAL INSP - NO -1 MO C) 192on Printed on : 07-FEB-2002 01:18.31 PM Br:37CO343 Dt:22-JAN-02 Key:AAAB ROADWAY: Looking West .w ELEVATION: Looking at Northerly Side 04-SCL-Co.Rd, BR# 37C0343, Los Gatos Creek, 02/22/02 STATE OF CALIFORNIA- BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF LOCAL ASSISTANCE - MS.1 : d 1120 N STREET P. 0. BOX 942573. SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001 Flex,yourpriwerl PHONE (916),(53-1776 Be energy efficient! FAX (916) 654-2409 TTY (916) 653-4086 September 14, 2005 Mr. John Curtis Director of Building & Engineering Town of Los Gatos P 0 Box 949 Los Gatos, CA 95031 Dear Mr. Curtis: The new federal regulation, 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 650 subpart C, requires a Plan of Action (POA) for each scour critical bridge within your jurisdiction. A list of your scour critical bridges is enclosed. In order to meet the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) deadline for compliance, you must submit your POAs to your District Local Assistance Engineer (DLAE) by December 1, 2005.. More than half of all bridge failures in the United States are caused by scour where flowing water erodes supporting material from bridge piers and abutments. The POAs are intended to identify the steps to reduce the danger to the traveling public and to resolve the scour issues.on scour critical bridges. To assist you in this effort, Caltrans Structure Maintenance and Investigations web site. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/stiuctur/stlinaint/ provides POA templates, sample _POAs, POA form field definitions, a Question & Answer section, and links to other POA reference material. If you believe you will be unable to meet the December 1, 2005 deadline for your POAs, you must submit a work plan to your.DLAE by October 14, 2005 that shows the steps you need to take to produce your POAS along with the schedule for each of those steps. We will work with FHWA to grant time extensions for agencies that submit work plans. If you have questions regarding the scour POAs, please contact your DLAE (list available at- htLp://www.dot.ca.govj'hq/Loc,ilPro,-r-,u-ns/dlae.htm). Sincerely, } 1 cL_ A--/ ~ TERRY L. ABBOTT BARTON NEWTON Chief Division of Local Assistance State Bridge Maintenance Engineer Enclosure "Caltrans improves mobiliq, across California" Attachment 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF LOCAL ASSISTANCE - MS.1 1120 N STREET P. O. BOX 942873 SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001 PHONE (916) 653-1776 FAX (916) 654-2409 TTY (916) 653-4086 O Flex your power) Be energy ejJcient! Scour Bridge # Structure Name Code SR SD/FO Facility Carried 37CO343 LOS GATOS CREEK 3 31.2 SD ROBERTS RD l Bridge(s) in your jurisdiction "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Gi.Th(W ~C0TTP Vyv \1 l'!_A'I ION - I'L_1N W- CTTOJti Br. No. Owner Location Facility Carried Name 37CO343 TOWN OF LOS 0.1 MILES ROBERTS RD LOS GATOS GATOS SOUTH OF CREEK BLOSSOM HILL RD Plan of Action Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc Date of Completed By: Dan Devlin Completion: 11/11/05 I, ti( (K 'R 1 t I,iNEI ~h~1].I Tl 1Z: T1N( Scour Evaluation Summary: During a field investigation on 01/13/04 conducted by Caltrans, approximately 1'-2" of the Pier 2 footing was exposed along the west side. Severe erosion at the slope of both sides of the west abutment was observed. h1 the hydraulics investigation on 6/3/2002 using the average degradation rate combined with the existing crossing section, this bridge was evaluated under calculated flows during a 100 year event. The potential scour elevation at Pier 2 is expected to extend below the bottom of footing. Based on this detail review, this bridge is detennined to be scour critical. Scour History: This structure has a history of significant degradation and footing exposure: • During the 1987 bridge inspection, the top 1 ft of the Pier 2 footing was exposed. hi the 2004 inspection, conditions worsened to V-2". hispection on 11-11-05 measured 1'-4". • Erosion under the right wingwall at Abutment 1 was sited in the 1994 and 1996 bridge reports. a. Foundation Type ® Spread footing ❑ Pile Extension ❑ Footing on Piles ❑ Uidaiown b. Foundation Material ❑ I<nown ® Unknown Scour Review: Done By: Daniel Zuhlke, Caltrans SM&I Date: 01/13/2004 Structural Assessment: Done By: Biggs Cardosa Associates, -1c. Date: 11/11/05 Critical Elevation: N/A Geotecllnical Assessment: Done By: None performed Date: Critical Elevation: 11-1, CO1)1INI~OIyli VI !(l\~ Most Recent his ection date 01/13/2004 Item 113 Scour 3 Item 60 Substructure 3 Item 61 Channel & Channel Protection 5 Item 71 Waterway Adequacy 5 C(►[ V'"C[:R_~11: I U[ RIJ oNINIFN1) Vl"I )N A. Completed Countermeasures: The bridge has been closed to vehicular traffic since March, 2005. The bridge will be monitored by Town staff while Town Council decides on the future of this bridge, repair existing bridge or replace it with a new bridge meeting current standards. B. Proposed Countermeasures: ❑ Countermeasures Not Required. (Please explain) ® Install Scour Countermeasures (See 4 and 5) Estimated Cost _Riprap with monitoring program $ -Guide bank $ -Spurs / Bendway weirs / Barbs $ -Relief bridge / Culvert $ -Channel improvements $ X Monitoring . $ 3,000/Yr -Monitoring device $ -Check Dam $ -Substructure Modification $ -Bridge replacement $ X Other the bridge is closed to traffic except for pedestrian/bicycle traffic ❑ Close Bridge (See 6) 4. {U11 N I Ll,,tAII_A~) 1_:RL 1_ N`II'l.l!.II;NI I IO!N' 1.4 II1J)I-~I. ; Countermeasure Implementation Project Type: ❑ Proposed Constriction Project Lead Agency ❑ Maintenance Project Advertised Date: Other scheduling information: monitoring is ongoing; Repair or Replace option of the bridge will be determined by Town Council in December 2005. Monitoring Plan Summary: The Town staff will monitor the bridge during their routine inspection, checking for signs of degradation undermining main chaimel spread footings and for bridge settlement. Should there appear any evidence of significant additional deterioration; the bridge will be closed to all traffic. Engineering staff from the town will be called by the Santa Clara Valley Water District when the creek flow rate at the Lark Ave station reaches 4800cfs. The engineering staff will survey the bridge deck for signs of fotuldation settlement. Monitoring will continue on a daily basis r ltil flows subside. Town personnel will contact the Santa Clara Valley Water District and Caltrans to discuss what action should be taken if significant flows contiiiue and significant scour degradation is observed. Monitoring Authority: Town of Los Gatos ® Regular Inspection Program of _24 mo. ❑w/surveyed cross sections Items to Watch: exposure/undermining of the spread footing at pier 2 ® Increased Inspection Interval of 12 mo. ❑w/surveyed cross sections Items to Watch: the footing exposure at the piers and any chaimel bed material erosion after each high flow ❑ Underwater Inspection Program Frequency mo. Iteins to Watch: ❑ Fixed Monitoring Device Type of histiuinent: Installation location(s): Sample Interval: ❑ 30 min. ❑ 1 hr. ❑ 6 hrs. ❑ 12 lus. ❑ Other Frequency of data logger downloading: ❑ Weekly ❑ Bi-weekly ❑ Monthly ❑ Other Scour-critical discharge: Action required if scour-critical elevation detected: ® Other Monitoring Program Type: ® Visual ❑ Instrument ❑ Portable ❑ Geophysical ❑ Sonar ❑ Other gages Flood monitoring required: ® Yes ❑ No Flood monitoring event defined by: ® Discharge over 4800cfs at Lark Ave ❑ Stage ❑ Elev. measured from Frequency of flood monitoring: ❑1 hr. ❑3 lu. ❑6 lus. ® Other 121ars Scour critical elevation: Action required if scour-critical elevation detected: Close the bridge. Bridge ADT: 0"- Built: 1918 % Trucks: 0 Bridge Length (ft): 85.0 Closure Plan Summary A daily elevation survey of the structure once the stream flow at the Lark Ave station has reached 4800cfs as measured by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Should the settlement of the structure be larger than 0.5", the bridge will be closed to all traffic. Scour Monitoring Criteria for Consideration of Bridge Closure: ❑ Water surface elevation reaches ® Overtopping road or structure ® Scour Measurement Results / Monitoring Device ❑ Loss of Riprap ® Observed amount of Settlement 0.5" ® Loss of Road Embanlanent ® Debris Accumulation ❑ Other Person / Area Responsible for Closure: Jolui Curtis, Town of Los Gatos, Public Works Dept. Contact People (Name &c Phone No.): John Curtis, 408-399-5774 Responsible for re-opening after inspection: John Curtis 7. DE-1-01 R 1ZUL11. Detour route description (route iuunber, from - to, etc.) - see attached map. Average ADT: 20625 Year: 1964 % Trucks:unknown Length: 137.8 ft Bridges on Detour Route: Bridge Number Waterway Sufficiency Rating/ Load limitations Scour 113 code 37C0104 Los Gatos Creek 95.1 UnImown *Prior to closure, Bridge ADT: 1644 with 1 % trucks. CAREY & CC INC. ARCHITECTURE November 2, 2005 Town of Los Gatos Parks & Public Works Department 41 Miles Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 RE: Roberts Road Bridge Historic Resource Evaluation Carey & Co. was retained to prepare a Historic Resource Evaluation of Roberts Road Bridge in Los Gatos, California. Carey & Co. is listed as a qualified historic preservation consultant with the California Office of Historic Preservation. The president of the firm, Alice Ross Carey, and I meet and exceed the United States Secretary of the Interior's Qualifications Standards' educational and experiential requirements for historic preservation professionals. Additionally, Carey & Co.'s Director of Preservation Planning, Hisashi B. Sugaya, meets and exceeds the United States Secretary of the Interior's Draft Revised Qualifications Standards' educational and experiential requirements for historic preservation professionals. Attached please find the Historic Resource Evaluation, consisting of DPR 523 A, B, and L forms. To prepare this Historic Resource Evaluation, Carey & Co. made site visits to the subject structure and we conducted archival research at various local and regional repositories, including the Town of Los Gatos Library, the California Room at the San Jose Library, the Town of Los Gatos Parks & Public Works . Department, and the online collections of University of California/Berkeley Earth Sciences and Map Library. Representative site visit photographs and a complete list of the documentary sources we consulted are included on the attached DPR 523L forms. Carey & Co. has assigned Roberts Road Bridge a "5S3" rating, indicating that the property appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation. Sincerely, Carin Petersen, Architectural Historian Preservation Specialist Attachment Old Engine Co. 170 2 460 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94108 41.5.773.0773 f 415.773.1.773 ATTACHMENT 3 State,of California'-The Resources Agency Piin ary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRJ# PRIMARY RECORD Innomial-- MRHP Status Code' Otter Listings Review Code Reviewer Date Page 1 of _ 14 Resource Name or (Assigned by recorder) Roberts Road Bridge P1. Other Identifier: Bridqe # 37CO343 *P2. Location: - Not for Publication "6 Unrestricted *a. County: Santa Clara County Calif. *b. USGS Quad: Date: T: R: S: c. Address:Roberts Road City Los Gatos, Calif. ZIP 95030 d. UTM (Give more than one for large or linear resources) Zone mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g. parcel directions to resource, elevation, etc. as appropriate) Located 0.10 miles south of Blossom Hill Road over Los Gatos Creek. *133a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) Adjacent to the bend in Roberts Road, between Oak Meadow Drive and Ohlone Court, Los Gatos Creek and Los Gatos Creek Trail are traversed by this two-span reinforced concrete bridge connecting two residential neighborhoods. The approximately eighty-five feet span over the creek is twenty feet wide allowing for vehicular traffic one way at a time and no sidewalks. Of deck girder construction, the substructure consists of two concrete girders spanned by shallower secondary beams and supported by flared wing-wall abutments and a single centered pier. Above the deck, straight, unarticulated concrete railings with rounded caps run across the span and on the wing-walls. Three vertical posts on each side feature recessed paneling and rounded overhanging caps and divide the span railings into two sections. A straight and level beveled coping is continuous across the railings and wing-walls, elevating slightly at posts. All exposed surfaces are plastered and all square corners are beveled. The concrete is reinforced with 1/2" square steel rebar, now visible in areas of deterioration. The deck surface has been paved and repaved with asphalt, overcoming the coping is some places. Two man holes are located near the wing-walls and a variety of pipes suspend from the outside of the railings and the substructure. *133b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP19. Bridge *P4. Resources Present: Building MV, Structure Object Site ll District F Element of District ! I Other P51b. Description of Photo (view, date, etc): South elevation from Los Gatos Creek Trail, 1015/05. *P6_ Date Constructed/Age/Sources: W, Historic 0 Prehistoric i Both 1918, original plans (Parks & Public Work,5)eo39b0_ML *P7. Owner and Address Town of Los Gatos P.O. Box 655 Los Gatos, CA 95D30 *P8. Recorded By: Carey and Co. 460 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94108 *P9. Date Recorded: 10/5105 *P10. Survey Type: Intensive survey *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none") Care & Co. "Roberts Road Bridge Historic Resource Evaluation," October 2005. *Attachments: NONE Location Map _ Sketch Map Continuation Sheet V Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record _ Linear Feature Record _ Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record _ Photograph Record Other (lis)___ DPR 523 A (1/95) *Required Information State of"California - The Resources Agency Pnmaiy { DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING', STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD NRHP Status Code: Page 2 of 14 Resource Name or (Assigned by recorder) Roberts Road Bridge B1. Historic Name: Roberts Road Bridge_Cypress Avenue Bridge T B2. Common Name: Roberts Road Bridqe B3. Original Use: Bridge B4. Present Use:Bridge *B5. Architectural Style: Reinforced concrete deck girder type with simple vernacular ornament *136. Construction History: (construction date, alterations, date of alterations) Originally constructed 1918. No major alterations to the bridge structure, configuartion, or railing elements have been made. Minor alterations include: suspension of piping along outsides edges of parapet and posts and below deck; repaving. *137. Moved? 1k, No 171Yes C' Unknown Date Original Location *B8. Related Features: 89a. Architect: J.M.C. Walker, City Engineer b. Builder: *610. Significance: Theme: Post-WWI Reinforced Concrete Brio es Area: Los Gatos Period of Significance: 1918 Property Type: Bridge Applicable Criteria: (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architecgtural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) Roberts Road Bridge in Los Gatos, California, is currently classified as "5, not eligible for the NRHP", on the Historical Significance - Local Agency Bridges database maintained by the California Department of Transportation. Carey & Co. has assigned the bridge, a "5S3" status code, indicating that the property appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation. See attached continuation sheet for Background History and Evaluation, and appended summary of California Historical Resources Status Codes updated August 2003. B11. Additional Resource Attributes(List attributes and codes) B12 References: . See attached continuation sheet for References. OAK &~O MEADOW A SSO P RK y yl~ LOS GATOS B13. Remarks: RpgD CREEK Historic Resource Evaluation w J z w "814. Evaluator: Carin Petersen, Carey & Co. Inc. e a *Date of Evaluation: 1015105 3 a a - ~ w ~ a S (This space reserved for official comments) i RpAb Q J i NORTH ¢ i I " Y v~ ROBERTS =1 ROAD ~J BRIDGE DPR 523 B (1195) *Required Information State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 3 of 14 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Roberts Road Bridge (HIRE) *Recorded by: Carey & Co. *Date: 10/05/2005 El Continuation ❑ Update P5a. Photos/P5b. Description of Photos Continued Bridge approach from west, 10/5/05 DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information State of California -The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 4 of 14 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Roberts Road Bridge (HRE) *Recorded by: Carey & Co. *Date: 10/05/2005 D Continuation ❑ Update r e r . r _ w~-- Al, vi f^ North side of bridge from Los Gatos Creek Trail, 10/5/05 Substructure showing west abutment and center pier, 1015105 DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information State of California- The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 5 of 14 - *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Roberts Road Bridge (HM) *Recorded by: Carey & Co. *Date: 10/05/2005 Continuation ❑ Update 4 Decorative post and railing with coping, 10/5105 r lIk a rt - n, Square reinforcement rods ii t deteriorating post, 10/5/05 DPR 523L (1195) *Required information State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 6 of 14 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Roberts Road Bridge (HRE) *Date: 10/05/2005 El Continuation i] Update Parged railing with beveled coping and rounded cap, 10/5/05 DPR 523L (1195) *Required information State of California-The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 7 of 14 'Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Roberts Road Bridge (ARE) 'Recorded by: Carey & Co. *Date: 10/05/2005 Z Continuation ❑ Update 31 Modern paving and manhole addition, 10/5/05 DPR 523L (1/95) END. *Required information State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HR14 CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 8 of 14 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Roberts Road Bridge (HRE) *Recorded by: Carey & Co. *Date: 10/05/2005 O Continuation ❑ Update B10. Significance: CON'T Background History: The Los Gatos area was occupied by the Ohlone Indians prior to exploration by the Spanish in the 1770s and later settlement by newly independent Mexican citizens in the early nineteenth century. The Rancho Rinconada de Los Gatos, a 6,631 acre parcel, was granted to Jose Maria Hernandez and Sebastian Fabian Peralta in 1839, and with that homesteading of the area began. Around 1855, during the early American period, the village of Los Gatos developed along Los Gatos Creek around the flour mill built in that year by James Alexander Forbes. The city of Los Gatos was finally incorporated in 1887.1 Initially cattle and sheep ranching were prevalent in the Los Gatos area. However, by 1878 and the arrival of the Southern Pacific Coast Railroad, fruit growing was becoming the dominant business, both in Los Gatos and the Santa Clara Valley in general. The railroad facilitated shipping, and soon the local fruit industry was booming. Fruit growing-related industries and inventions also characterized business development in Los Gatos at this z time. Around the turn of.the century, additional railroad passenger service aided in further establishing the town and the west bank of Los Gatos Creek and brought "tourists, picnickers, summer residents, commuters, and health seekers" to the towns Outlying areas began to develop with both the fruit industry and residential growth. By the 1950s fruit growing was no longer the primary industry of Los Gatos. The area came to be dominated by residential use, especially with an increase in population following the end of World War II. Today Los Gatos is characterized by its upscale homes, antique stores and art galleries." Cypress Avenue, located northeast of the town center, was established with the fruit industry growth prior to the turn of the century. Early properties near the street included California Condensed Juice Company and Los Gatos Drying Works, as well as scattered residences! Though a bridge had already been constructed across the creek at Main Street, immediate demand arose for a second crossing to the north. Local historian William A. Wulf notes, "before 1893, when the Cypress Avenue Bridge was built, the people of Los Gatos would go for Sunday drives, in good weather, north on San Thomas Aquino Road (Santa Cruz Avenue) north to Farley Road and ford the Los Gatos Creek from the west bank to the east bank and onto Farley Road to the San Jose- Lexington Road (Los Gatos Blvd.) and south back into downtown Los Gatos."' In 1892, University Avenue was extended through to Cypress Avenue prompting John J. Roberts, owner of 160 acres on the east side of Los Gatos 'George G. Bruntz, "From Wilderness to Village: Los Gatos' Early Days," Los Gatos History [online], accessed 4 August 2005, available at http://vm w.Iosgatos,com/history/bruntz-early.html; "History", Town of Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce Uc' 2002 [online], accessed 3 August 2005, available at http://www.los-gatos.org/main/history.html. 2 "History", Town of Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce © 2002 [online], accessed 3 August 2005, available at http://www.los-gatos.org/main/history.html, s Anne Bloomfield, Los Gatos Historic Resources Inventory (San Francisco: Anne Bloomfield, 1991). ""History", Town of Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce © 2002 [online], accessed 3 August 2005, available at http://www.los- gatos.org/main/history.html; William A. Wulf, "Chronological History," Town of Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce © 2002 [online], accessed August 2005, available at http://www.los-gatos.org/main/history2.html. s Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, "Los Gatos, Calif.", Oct. 1904, maps I and 2. 'William A. Wulf, "The Cypress Avenue -Roberts Road Bridge" Historical Collection notes provided to Carey & Co. by the Town of Los Gatos. DPR 523L (1195) *Required information State of California-The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONT'INUAT'ION SHEET Trinomial Page 9 of 14 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Roberts Road Bridge (FIRE) *Recorded by: Carey & Co. *Date: 10/05/2005 El Continuation ❑ Update Creek, to petition for a northern bridge from Cypress Avenue, crossing the creek and his lands, to connect with the San Jose-Lexington Road.' Thus the first iteration of the Roberts Road Bridge was erected, of wood construction. Increasing population in Los Gatos, as well as residential growth around Cypress Avenue continued throughout the early twentieth century. Though historian William A. Wulf sites a request by land owner, James Forrest, for a concrete replacement bridge in 1903, plans for that bridge were not executed until 1918, possibly delayed by WWI (1914-1918), The post-WWI era hosted a shift in the use of automobiles from leisure to transportation, a government committed to creating a system of interstate highways, and the development of road engineering as a profession. Early bridges throughout the country were replaced with stronger reinforced concrete spans.8 Roberts Road Bridge, as it exists today, was originally constructed in 1918 under the direction of City Engineer, J.M.C. Walker, and County Surveyor, Irving L. Ryder. Original construction documents detail a two-span reinforced concrete deck girder type bridge with wing-wall abutments, a center pier, and a post and rail parapet. The earlier wooden bridge is delineated as the same size and location as its concrete replacement. The drawings further specify that all square comers are to be beveled, all exposed surfaces plastered, and the deck to be covered in 1/2" oil and screening.9 Concrete girder bridges were much less common than arched bridges, mainly due to aesthetic perceptions, however girder bridges were considered economical, the grade of the bridge floor could be located lower, and the foundations could be built on more yielding soil where arched foundations couldn't. The structure's stylistic features are limited to the post and rail system bordering the deck. The design of these elements is simple and loosely classical in nature, as well as indicative of the regional, vernacular variation on the small, rural, early reinforced concrete highway bridge. Little change has occurred to the 1918 iteration of Roberts Road Bridge over the past eight decades. Visual observation indicates that the road has been repaved several times, sidewalks have been added terminating at the wing-walls, and various sized pipelines have been suspended from the railings and substructure with bolted metal hangers. No major alterations or renovations are evident; however the concrete has begun to deteriorate. Of the eight bridges currently standing in the Town of Los Gatos, identified by personnel at Los Gatos Parks & Public Works Department, Roberts Road Bridge is the oldest by at least twenty years. Though not the original wooden bridge, the existing concrete bridge is the oldest unaltered bridge within the Town of Los Gatos and a good example of an early small regional reinforced concrete highway bridge. Evaluation: The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) evaluates a property's historic significance based on the following four criteria: Criterion A (Event): Properties that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. ' Ibid. 'Carole Rifkind, A Field Guide to American Architecture (New York: Plume, 1980). 'Original construction documents provided by Los Gatos Parks Public Works Department. DPR 523L (1195) *Required information State of California- The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 10 of 14 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Roberts Road Bridge (HRE) *Recorded by: Carey & Co. *Date: 10/05/2005 ® Continuation ❑ Update Criterion B (Person): Properties that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. Criterion C (Design/Construction): Properties that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Criterion D (Information Potential): Properties that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. In addition to historic significance, an NRHP evaluation includes a determination of physical integrity, or the property's ability to convey its historic significance. Integrity consists of seven aspects: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Roberts Road Bridge, in Los Gatos, CA, is currently not listed on the NRHP. It was found ineligible for listing by a 1986 survey conducted by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). In Carey & Co.'s professional opinion the bridge does not appear to be individually NRHP eligible. To be potentially eligible for individual listing on the NRHP, a structure must usually be over 50 years old, must have historic significance, and must retain its physical integrity. Since Roberts Road Bridge was constructed approximately 87 years ago, it meets the age requirement. However, it does not appear to possess sufficient historic significance within the broad patterns of our history for individual listing. Though associated with the development of transportation in America - impacts of the automobile, the connected highway system, early road engineering and reinforced concrete highway bridges, archival research yielded no information indicating a significant association with these historic events and developments (NRHP Criteria A). Under NRHP Criterion B, archival research yielded no information indicating an association with significant historic individuals or entities. Though Roberts Road Bridge is an example of early rural reinforced concrete highway bridge, under NRHP Criterion C, the structure's simple, loosely classical style and construction type do not sufficiently embody the distinctive characteristics of the style, type, or period to be individually eligible. Finally, archival research provided no indication that the bridge has the potential to yield exceptionally important information (NRHP Criterion D). The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) evaluates a resource's historic significance based on the following four criteria: Criterion 1 (Eventl: Resources associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. ■ Criterion 2 (Person): Resources associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history. Criterion 3 (Design/Construction): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master or possess high artistic values. DPR 523L (1195) `Required information State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONT'INUAT'ION SHEET Trinomial Page 11 of 14 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Roberts Road bridge (HIKE) *Recorded by: Carey & Co. *Date: 10/05/2005 IK Continuation ❑ Update ■ Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Resources that have yielded or have the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. In addition to historic significance, a CRHR evaluation includes a determination of physical integrity, or the authenticity of an historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance. Any resource listed in or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP is automatically eligible for listing in the CRHR. Since Roberts Road Bridge was constructed 87 years ago, it meets the CRHR age requirements. However, it does not appear to possess sufficient historic significance for listing. In Carey & Co.'s opinion, under CRHR Criterion 1 archival research yielded no information indicating sufficient association with significant historic events, Under CRHR Criterion 2, archival research yielded no information indicating an association with significant historic individuals or entities. Under CRHR Criterion 3, the structure's vernacular style and construction type does not sufficiently embody the distinctive characteristics of the style, type, or period. Archival research provided no indication that the bridge has the potential to yield exceptionally important information (CRHR Criterion 4). Since physical integrity is based on historic significance, and the building does not appear to possess historic significance, its physical integrity can not be evaluated. The Town of Los Gatos, Municipal Code, Sec. 29.80.220, gives the Town Council authority to by ordinance designate: (1) One (1) or more individual structures or other features, or integrated groups of structures and features on one (1) or more lots or sites, having a special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value, as landmarks, and shall designate a landmark site for each landmark; and (2) One (1) or more areas containing a number of structures having special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value, and constituting distinct sections of the Town, as historic districts. Designated structures are regulated under procedures outlined in the Municipal Code. Due to the replacement and alteration of the bridges of Los Gatos, Roberts Road Bridge is now the oldest retraining bridge in the town. Built in 1918, it is a good example of a regional, vernacular variation on the small, rural, early reinforced concrete highway bridge. It is also an immediate product of post-WWI road improvement and engineering. It is Carey & Co.'s professional opinion that while the structure does not possess sufficient significance to be listed on the National Register or the California Register, its association with the transportation and roadway development in Los Gatos, as well as its construction type and integrity lend sufficient significance to be eligible for local listing and recognition. In Carey & Co.'s professional opinion Roberts Road Bridge should be assigned the status code of "5S3" indicating that it appears individually eligible for local listing only. END. DPR 523L (1195) *Required information State of California-The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 12 of 14 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Roberts Road Bridge (HRE) *Recorded by: Carey & Co. *Date: 10/05/2005 l] Continuation ❑ Update B12. References: CON'T Baggerly, John S. "Auction brought prosperity to settlers," Los Gatos History [Online]. Accessed 4 August 2005, available at http://www.losgatos.com/history/auction.html. Originally published in Los Gatos Weekly Times. Baggerly, John S. "Prune prices vied with Babe Ruth for headlines," Los Gatos History [Online]. Accessed 4 August 2005, available at http://www.losgatos.com/history/prune.htmi. Originally published in Los Gatos Weekly-Times. Bennett, Mardi, Ed. Images of Long Ago: A Century of People, Places & Progress in the Town of Los Gatos and the Cities of Saratoga and Monte Sereno. Los Gatos, CA: Marben Assoc., 1987. Black, Archibald. Story of Bridges. New York: Wittlesey House, 1936. Bloomfield, Anne. Los Gatos Historic Resource Inventory. San Francisco, CA: Anne Bloomfield, 1991. "Bridge Basics - A Spotter's Guide to Bridge Design," [Online]. Accessed 4 October 2005, available at http://pghbridges.com/basics.htm. Bruntz, George C. The History of Los Gatos: Gem of the Foothills. Fresno, CA: Valley Publishers, 1971. Bruntz, George G. "From Wilderness to Village: Los Gatos' Early Days," Los Gatos History [Online]. Accessed 4 August 2005, available at http://www.losgatos.com/historylbruntz-tarly.html. Excerpted from History of Los Gatos, published by Valley Publishers (Fresno) in 1971 and republished by Western Tanager Press in 1983. California Department of Transportation. "Historical Significance - Local Agency Bridges: Santa Clara County." Caltrans Structure Maintenance and Investigations database, October 1, 2001. Conaway, Peggy. Los Gatos. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Press, 2004. Dallas, Alastair. Los Gatos Observed. Los Gatos, CA: Infospect Press, 1999. DeMers, Donald O. and Ann M. Whitesell, Santa Clara Valley: Images of the Past, San Jose, Calif.: San Jose Historical Museum Association, c.1977. Foote, H.S. Pen Pictures from the Garden of the World, or Santa Clara County, California. Chicago: The Lewis Publishing Co., 1888. Hamsher, Clarence F. Los Gatos Historical Notes. Los Gatos Public Library, History Room. "History," Town of Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce © 2002 [Online]. Accessed 3 August 2005, available at http://www.los-gatos.org/mainAiistory.html. DPR 523L (1195) *Required information State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 13 of 14 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Roberts Road Bridge (HRE) -'Recorded by: Carey & Co, *Date: 10/05/2005 0 Continuation ❑ Update "Los Gatos, California," Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [Online]. Accessed 3 August 2005, available at http://en.wikipedia.org.wiki/Los Gatos%2C California. McAlester, Virginia and Lee McAlester. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986. McCullough, C. B. Economics of Highway Bridge Types. Chicago: Gillette Publishing Co., 1929. National Park Service. How to Complete the National Register Form, National Register Bulletin 16A. Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1991. Payne, Stephen M. Santa Clara County, Harvest of Change. Northridge, CA: Windsor Publications, 1987. Petershagen, George F.. Buildings and Bridges: Historic Preservation and Caltrans. Sacramento, CA: Environmental Division, California Department of Transportation, 1993. "Plans for Reinforced Concrete Bridge on Roberts Road over Los Gatos Creek," original construction documents dated June 1918. Los Gatos Parks & Public Works Department. Rifkind, Carole. A Field Guide to American Architecture. New York: Plume, 1980. San Jose Mercury News clippings file (1960's to present), San Jose Public Library, California Room. San Jose Mercury News clippings file, 1920-1985, San Jose Public Library, California Room. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps. "Los Gatos, Calif." 1891, map 1; 1904, maps 1,2; 1908, maps 1, 3, 15; 1928 and 1944, maps 1, 4, 28. Santa Clara County and its resources ; historical, descriptive, statistical. A souvenir of the San Jose Mercury. San Jose, Calif.: San Josh Mercury ublishing and Printing Co., 1896. Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory. San Jose, Calif: Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission, 1999. Sawyer, Eugene T. History of Santa Clara County California. Los Angeles: Historic Record Co., 1922. Shellen, Grant. "Bridge Will Remain Open, just Not to Traffic," Los Gatos News [Online]. Accessed 12 October 2005, available at http://www.community-newspapers.com/archives/lgwt/20040929/tgnewsI.shtmi. Originally published in Los Gatos Weekly-Times 29 September 2004. Thompson & West. Historical Atlas of Santa Clara County, California. San Francisco: Thompson & West, 1876. Tyrrell, H. Grattan. Concrete Bridges and Culverts for both Railroads and Highways. Chicago: The Myron C. Clark Publishing Co., 1909. DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information State of California - The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONTINUATION S ET Trinomial Page 14 of 14 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by raoorder) Roberts Road Bridge (HRE) *Recorded by: Carey & Co. *Date: 10/05/2005 21 Continuation ❑ Update Wulf, William A. "Chronological History," Town of Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce © 2002 [Online]. Accessed August 2005, available at http://www.los-gatos.org/mainA-iistory2.html, Wulf, William A. "The Cypress Avenue - Roberts Road Bridge" Historical Collection notes provided to Carey & Co. by the Town of Los Gatos. END. DPR 523L (1195) *Required information California Historical Resource Status Codes 1 , . Properties isted'in the National;Register:(NR) or-the California Register (CR) ID Contributor to a district or multiple resource property listed in NR by the Keeper. Listed in the CR, 15 Individual property listed in NR by the Keeper. Listed in the CR. 1CD Listed in the CR as a contributor to a district or multiple resource property by the SHRC ICS Listed in the CR as individual property by the SHRC. 1CL Automatically listed in the California Register - Includes State Historical Landmarks 770 and above and Points of Historical Interest nominated after December 1997 and recommended for listing by the SHRC. 2 i?roperties determine d eligible forliAing m; the. National Register (NR) of the Californja Register (Glt) 2B Determined eligible for NR as an individual property and as a contributor to an eligible district in a federal regulatory process, Listed in the CR. 2D Contributor to a district determined eligible for NR by the Keeper. Listed in the CR. 2D2 Contributor to a district determined eligible for NR by consensus through Section 106 process. Listed in the CR, 2D3 Contributor to a district determined eligible for NR by Part I Tax Certification. Listed in the CR. 2D4 Contributor to a district determined eligible for NR pursuant to Section 106 without review by SHPO. Listed in the CR. 2S Individual property determined eligible for NR by the Keeper. Listed in the CR. 2S2 Individual property determined eligible for NR by a consensus through Section 106 process. Listed in the CR. 2S3 Individual property determined eligible for NR by Part I Tax Certification, Listed in the CR. 2S4 Individual property determined eligible for NR pursuant to Section 106 without review by SHPO. Listed in the CR. 2CB Determined eligible for CR as an individual property and as a contributor to an eligible district by the SHRC. 2CD Contributor to a district determined eligible for listing in the CR by the SHRC. 2CS Individual property determined eligible for listing in the CR by the SHRC. 3 Appears eligible for National. Register (NR) or California Register. (tR) through Survey Eyaluation 3B Appears eligible for NR both individually and as a contributor to a NR eligible district through survey evaluation. 3D Appears eligible for NR as a contributor to a NR eligible district through survey evaluation, 3S Appears eligible for NR as an individual property through survey evaluation. 3CB Appears eligible for CR both individually and as a contributor to a CR eligible district through a survey evaluation. 3CD Appears eligible for CR as a contributor to a CR eligible district through a survey evaluation, 3CS Appears eligible for CR as an individual property through survey evaluation. 4 Appears eligible for National Register (NR) or California Register (rR) through other evaluation; 4CM Master List - State Owned Properties - PRC §5024. S Prgperties.Recognized as Historically Significant 11 Local Gove.rnment 5D1 Contributor to a district that is listed or designated locally. 5D2 Contributor to a district that is eligible for local listing or designation. 5D3 Appears to be a contributor to a district that appears eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation. SS1 Individual property that is listed or designated locally. . 5S2 Individual property that is eligible for local listing or designation. 5S3 Appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation, 5B Locally significant both individually (listed, eligible, or appears eligible) and as a contributor to a district that is locally listed, designated, determined eligible or appears eligible through survey evaluation. 6 Not Eingrble' .6f Listing or, ®esignation as specified 6C Determined ineligible for or removed from California Register by SHRC. 63 Landmarks or Points of Interest found ineligible for designation by SHRC. 6L Determined ineligible for local listing or designation through local government review process; may warrant special consideration in local planning. 6T Determined ineligible for NR through Part I Tax Certification process. 6U Determined ineligible for NR pursuant to Section 106 without review by SHPO. 6W Removed from NR by the Keeper. 6X Determined ineligible for the NR by SHRC or Keeper. 6Y Determined ineligible for NR by consensus through Section 106 process - Not evaluated for CR or Local Listing. 6Z Found ineligible for NR, CR or Local designation through survey evaluation. Not Evaluated foradational.Register;(NR)'orCalifornia:Registerf(CR) or Needs Revaluation 73 Received by OHP for evaluation or action but not yet evaluated. 7K Resubmitted to OHP for action but not reevaluated. 7L State Historical Landmarks 1-769 and Points of Historical Interest designated prior to January 1998 - Needs to be reevaluated using current standards. 711 Submitted to OHP but not evaluated - referred to NPS. 7N Needs to be reevaluated (Formerly NR Status Code 4) 7N1 Needs to be reevaluated (Formerly NR SC4) - may become 7R Identified in Reconnaissance Level Survey: Not evaluated. 7W Submitted to OHP for action - withdrawn, eligible for NR w/restoration or when meets other specific conditions. 11/21/2003 41, 41ij Attn: Kevin Rohani, P.E. Town of Los Gatos Parks & Public Works Dept. 41 Miles Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95031 Reference: Roberts Road Bridge Repairs Dear Mr_ Rohani: May 10, 2005 Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction Inc. has made a site inspection to the Roberts Road Bridge, reviewed pertinent plans and reports related to this structure as requested by the Town. It is our understanding that consideration is being given to perform repairs to this bridge to address its various deficiencies. It is important to point out that the following cost estimates are based on our investigation and inspection of the bridge and assumptions regarding retrofit scope. Detail construction costs can be submitted, after the preparation of engineering bid documents by the Town. Mid Fier and Foundation There is substantial erosion and scouring of the foundation in the middle of the creek. This pier is critical to the stability of the bridge and its failure would cause the collapse of the bridge. Repairs and reinforcement of this foundation will require excavation of the creek channel and dewatering or diversion of creek flow around the construction area. Due to the unknown creekbed soil conditions, excavation for this retrofit work could be time consuming and expensive. In addition, there are limitations related to access for equipment, Fish & Game requirements and water distribution agency coordination issues. Depending on whether diversion or dewatering is required around the worksite and the actual scope of required foundation retrofit work, it is estimated that the repair costs to the mid-pier foundation would range from approximately $165,000 to $330,000. Bridge Abutment The deterioration on the abutments includes, not only longitudinal and transverse cracks, but also failure of concrete. We noticed on several locations the absence of reinforcing steel 2"- 3" below concrete surface at spalled areas on the east abutment as well as aggregate size and size variance in non-conformance with current industry standards. 11 is not clear if this is an isolated problem or if it exists throughout the structure. Further investigation of areas requiring repair is needed to fully define retrofit scope. Based on the assumption of a 2' thick concrete cladding of each abutment including extensive doweling and steel reinforcement, it is estimated the cost for performing repairs to both abutments will be approximately $330,000. E I`v; u;Y 1 2065 Ll )j f TOI-~t! OF LOS GATOS PARiKS APiD FUSILIC'veophS DEFT 1390 Norman Avenue Santa Clara, CA 95054 Fax; 4081970-9975 4081970-9900 Lic. No. 245215 ATTACHMENT 4 _ MOD&F15 MUa❑ 6f IUge zeuel y May 10, 2005 Pg2of2 Deck and Soffitt There are several areas on the bridge soffitt, which have failed concrete sections and exposed reinforcing steel. Based on previous experience from similar jobs requiring repair of this kind of concrete failure, it is estimated the cost for performing repair work to the deck and soffitt will be approximately $165,000. Concrete Railing The railings on this bridge have been damaged as a result of vehicular accidents and the natural aging process due to long term exposure. These railings do not meet current standards and need to be retrofitted. Based on the assumption that the existing barrier will be demolished and replaced with a current standard barrier with architectural features preserving the look of the 1918 barrier, it is estimated the cost for concrete railing replacement will be approximately $77,000. In summary, total construction costs for general retrofit work could range from $737,000 to $902,000. This estimate does not include design costs, construction management and engineering fees during construction. As stated earlier, this is an order of magnitude cost estimate only and should not be construed as an actual proposal to perform described work. As a project comparison, Anderson Pacific performed seismic retrofit work on the Lark Ave. Bridge and Blossom Hill Road Bridge over the Los Gatos Creek for the Town of Los Gatos. The construction costs for these retrofit projects were substantially less, primarily because these bridges were newer; did not have the same level of deterioration; were built to current standards with acceptable vehicular loading requirements, and did not require construction and/or excavation within the creek. If overall goals for the Roberts Road Bridge are long term utilization of the bridge with current vehicular loadings, minimum maintenance costs, and higher value to cost ratio, Anderson Pacific recommends construction of a single span arch bridge that is designed and built to current seismic and structural standards with particular attention paid to replicating the 1918 bridge's architectural aesthetic. If you have any further questions, please contact me at (408) 970-9900. Sincerely, Melanie Carrido, P.E. Project Manager 1390 Norman Avenue Santa Clara, CA 95054 Far.: 408/970-9975 4081970-9900 Lic. No. 245215 Roberts Bridge Page 1 of 2 John Curtis - Roberts Bridge From: "Inga Vailionis." <IVailionis@nvidia.com> To: <JCurtis@losgatosca.gov> Date: 11/21/2005 10:20:26 AM Subject: Roberts Bridge CC: "Geri Miller" <gkmillerl@verizon.net>, <arturas@stanford.edu> Dear Mr. Curtis: I'm a resident at 211 Oak Meadow Dr. in Los Gatos. I was very excited and relieved last spring, when I heard of Los Gatos Council's decision to close the Roberts Road bridge. This has turned Roberts Rd. into a small residential street for pedestrians. It's been such a joy seeing families with strollers, kids on bikes, joggers, older couples walking slowly down the closed area and enjoying Los Gatos Creek or simply meditating on the bridge. Not to mention a significant reduction in noise, particularly from speeding late-to-school-and-back traffic, that became possible due to bridge closure. In fact, prior to the bridge got closed, Roberts Road had become so loud and unsafe to kids due to intense traffic, that a neighbor of mine had to move out and rent out her house. Los Gatos Council had made the right decision to close the bridge for car traffic. I felt so grateful - and relieved - that you guys made the right move. And I pray this decision is permanent. Today, Gerri Miller emailed me that you're working on Roberts Road-related report to bring to the council on December 5th. I sincerely hope the decision to keep Roberts bridge closed for traffic won't be affected. Best regards, Inga Inga Vailionis, Ph.D. 211 Oak Meadow Dr. Los Gatos, CA 95032 408-395-0848 (home) 408-348-7971 (cell) ATTACHMENT 5 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settinas\user\Local%20Settines\Temn\C,T,-W1BOM1 _HTM 11/9Q19()()5 Page 1 of 1 Patsy Garcia - Re-open the Roberts Road Bridge From: <OakMeadowDental@aol.com> To: <manager@losgatosca.gov> Date: 11/30/2005 9:05 PM Subject: Re-open the Roberts Road Bridge CC: <OakMeadowDental@aol.com> To the Town Council of Los Gatos, Please reconsider your prior decision to close the Roberts Rd Bridge. Most of the feedback at the meetings has revolved around the effect on the residents. I thought you might also like to hear about the effect on a local business. Our dental office is located adjacent to the bridge at the corner of Roberts Rd. and Oak Meadow Dr. We have had an increase in parking problems since there is less street parking available. Joggers used to be able to park easier on Roberts Road but now find it necessary to park in our lot. We have had to install No Parking/Tow Away signs as our own patients are no longer able to park in our own lot. We also have had many patients inconvenienced by the bridge closure, coming the direction they have traveled to the office since it was opened in 1979 only to find they have to turn around and go another way. None of them understand how the council could have voted to close the bridge when it could cost less to rebuild. The ,current signs marking the closure are less than adequate. I understand they are temporary, but the are looking very worn and do not resemble the same look that Los Gatos is trying to achieve downtown. I have one other question. When the new houses next to Hwy 17 and Hwy 9 are completed, is the traffic going to be allowed to come through to Roberts Road as an alternate exit? The construction trucks have been using that route and blocking the parking spaces as well along the "sidewalks." If the new traffic will be allowed through, there will be a definite impact on the prior estimates and studies made along Roberts Road, University, and Oak Meadow Drive. Thanklyou for hearing my concerns. Robert Dyer, DDS 210 Oak Meadow Drive Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408)395-1121 Bridge meeting 7:00 pm ck website also send an emial stating why you want the bridge open. send email to manager losgatosca.gov no later than Thursday make sure the petition you sent over will be part of the agenda if possible call ahead. file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\pgarcia\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW) 0000 LHTM 12/1/2005 Dear Mr. Mayor and fellow Council Members, I wanted to address the town council's 3 to 2 decision on the Roberts Road Bridge. Once again the town council has voted on what to do with the bridge without having all of the facts in front of them. A decision was made in favor of option #1 which is to close the bridge permanently to vehicular traffic, while keeping it open to pedestrians and bicyclists. How much is this was going to cost the town and. how is the town going to pay for the cost? In the prior council meeting, the Town Council voted to close down the bridge because they couldn't afford the estimated cost of $1,000,000 to repair the bridge. What the Town council didn't know or could not answer before they voted? 1. They didn't know if the bridge was historic, but assumed it was. 2. How much is the cost of putting up safety railing for the bridge? 3. How much is the cost of repairing the middle pier and abutments, which is contributing to the weakness and safety of the bridge? 4. How much is the cost of securing proper supports for the utility lines which are currently suspended from the bridge? 4. How much is the cost of required seismic repairs? 5. How much is the cost of the planters that were suggested to give the bridge a "pleasing look". 6. How much will the ongoing cost of maintaining the planters and watering the plants? 7. Does the Town carry liability insurance on the bridge? 8. Where is the Town going to get the money for the previously mentioned modifications? What are the Facts? 1. This is an old bridge built in 1918 to support a farming business. The bridge has not been granted historic significance and the Town will not be able to secure any grants to repair the bridge under this pretext. 2. The old bridge is a liability to the Town because the Town has failed to maintain it. 3. Without significant investment, the old bridge will continue to deteriorate, even if there is no vehicular traffic. 4. The people MOST impacted are the neighborhoods around the bridge. Those neighbors clearly want the bridge to remain open to vehicular traffic. 5. The majority of the people MOST impacted want to enlist Caltrans to design a new bridge. 6. The cost of a new bridge is estimated at $1,500,000 and Caltrans will fund 88% of the cost. This offer may not be available a year from now. 7. The cost of building the new bridge to the Town is $180,000 based on the remaining 12% allocation of the $1.5 million cost. 8. The new bridge can be designed with architectural features similar to the existing bridge, safer for pedestrian, bicycles and vehicular traffic. 9. The new bridge can be striped for a one lane bridge with stop signs at both ends as before. We would like the council to reconsider their decision and compile the facts. The Main Street Bridge failed many years ago because of flooding. The town was aware 5 years before it happened that there was a possibility the Main Street Bridge would fall if nothing was done. It also cost the town more than it would have if they had fixed it earlier. Do we want to wait until this bridge falls down and someone gets hurt before something is done? Do we want to wait until the State can't afford to offer this deal and the town will have to pay for it out of its own pocket? There is an opportunity at a cost to the town of $180,000 to create bridge with real historic significance. This council can make its own history and build a beautiful bridge that will be safe for us and our families for many years. Yet 3 of the council members have opted to ignore the wishes of the majority of the town's people most impacted, many of whom voted for them. Determine the true facts and then make the right decision. Concerned Voter and Resident, Kim and Jim Gavin 132 Ohlone Ct. To Whom It May Concern, We are the neighbors of the Los Gatos subdivision that are adjacent to the Vasona Park entrance on Ohlone Court. We enjoy the Fantasy of Lights show every year in Vasona Park. However this year will be different for the Ohlone Court residents. In the past, we were able to bypass the traffic congestion on Blossom Hill Road by using the Roberts Road Bridge. This year the Roberts Road Bridge is closed. In the past, the traffic directors would not let us turn left onto Blossom Hill Road from Roberts Road. They would only allow the residents to turn right. This is a major inconvenience to the residents. We are requesting that you allow us to turn either way or if possible have the Town open the bridge for the holidays. The Residents of Los Gatos Glen RECEIVED Oak Meadow Dental Center DEC 0 1 2005 Christina M. Fantino, D.D.S. & Robert E. Dyer, D.D.S. ,Y®R&TO COUNCI, 210 Oak Meadow Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95030 - 4499 tt- zg-vS l (-L'-XZ'E I S " GC1 ±7o WE- 'iZ "1Z~Cx~ TlA-S k>l21'~f-~~. ~ o"~"~ J S1~Nr`\`Nf1-irS ~"~•2-f ~1•'^'~ ©f~lt_`~ C~/~i TO Se ti Wes} + d?l~Sc t> 7D ~i~ l1jC~~ dPc~~ n/V • i-T 'j ~eZ 1l r- oSC~ d ~.ie (cam S; CC.os / A-Iij / 7'Rla,~ -rrwlc: uj' A- Jv 1, to x i~ltrr7 LtvL n~ ~05 C~~Us A>'7 T 1-h% .S rJP-R cS.~ rr~ t ~ L~ PcSzE~r"S . M~7.S r c)'~ Ti'0'7"~ c,-%:.= lzt~ 5t1~~~ Z ~'(t+4 T Tc -i~~~,J &-47- t--S Gas &"t) -h- -,0" w . -rt?, aa- T L Qn 11~6G < ~Cf T ~G C,✓~S ~r✓ C7~v ld✓S Ckj0\' , ' -m ILPL kc.-a 3ta~~C wth'+~ M~c% .~Ffl a v~ i 1-b CGS u se Tit (S (-~vw ~'~'-`~u ✓ cA^j -/-o LAC v v" G -7- 4) i H 1'- ~v~~, I~-~~I+R~Cilnl~ '(f•f`% ~~`~S~d'/a./C~ j !~1 L/n/C-~ gtZ (A Uc:. i ~f NLe~-c=r-`'f D 76 rW rM 0 rot 0 o~ r_ 93 0 ca CL t~ r # ~ a I ~ M .0 \ M z tR- J co e2 z v C14 't rO (D t- ®c) (3) P i ~n b CT WZ - s r m ~ N Ilk ~ 1n. IRS Vf 3' o N ~ ~ ~1 J Q o C 4 rv~ V ♦ S © I c ~ O ze 3 i P P e tl F ♦'I VI P LO P CD P P co P 0 P ® CN P CN C14 N m cm ~Vp ♦ ♦,I w C%4 (0 C14 I~ cm co C14 0) CN O co 17 h J~ t -k', 31 5 o f CID fi t LLI ` r~ ro ~J y e v u ZZ> i~ V L ti P ce) N co Cy eV) CQ LO Co Cg Co Ce) co Cv7 0) CY) ® CVI m "Ir LO co co 0) C) LO V IN c 4 . ~ ~ Arm-j '~.J^I 1 10 A 1 r„ f NIX 4 ^ \ V cot a It Fn I' 1 ` J ~ u O ` l~ yyy,,, ~ % \1f aV U Il k, U q f C c a~a N LO M LO q:t U-) LO to C LO LO co LO w LO ' ® e~ a- CD N Cg CO C9 ~a CD (0 0 W co co m C ~ L ! I !n n ~ L.- ~r Z4 V c) v L e " J J u ° a ~ a. 10 M b ~ ~ ~ j ; q el Q t1 a J N M u~ LO ( co 0 tl- ® ~ P co f%9 co m 00 ~r co ate co CD co V` co co w 0) w C) C) (D co co -4 to ~ W K k i tv s Z C ICA r r 'S g' N -a S Nz r C-A G~ z i \QI v t 1 ~ O kx O i