11 Staff Report - Roberts Road Bridge ProjecttOwN 0 MEETING DATE: 3/19/07
ITEM NO:
co'°os COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
S GAS
DATE: MARCH 14, 2007
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: DEBRA J. FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: ROBERTS ROAD BRIDGE PROJECT
A. REVIEW PROGRESS REPORT ON THE ROBERTS ROAD BRIDGE
PROJECT
B. AUTHORIZE STAFF TO RE-OPEN THE BRIDGE DURING THE
PROJECT DESIGN PHASE
C. AUTHORIZE STAFF TO BEGIN THE DESIGN CONSULTANT
SELECTION PROCESS BASED ON CALTRANS GUIDELINES
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Review progress report on the Roberts Road Bridge project.
2. Authorize staff to re-open the bridge during the project design phase.
3. Authorize staff to begin the design consultant selection process based on Caltrans guidelines.
BACKGROUND:
The Roberts Road Bridge project has been discussed at three previous Town Council meetings,
the first on September 20, 2004, the second on May 2, 2005, and the third on December 5, 2005.
At the December 5, 2005 meeting, the Town Council decided to replace the bridge with a new
structure that meets current safety design standards and instructed staff to apply for grant funding
from Caltrans for this project. See copy of Council report - (Attachment 1).
The purpose of this report is to 1) provide the Town Council with an update on the status of
Caltrans grant funding for this project, 2) review staff's recommendation to re-open the bridge
during the design phase, and 3) review next steps for project design and construction.
PREPARED BY: KEVIN ROHANI
Interim Director of Parks and Public Works
NAB&E\COUNCIL REPORTS\Roben Road Bridge Project.doc
Reviewed by:f tl,~ Assistant Town Manager -~-Town Attorney
Clerk Administrator Finance "ommunity Development
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: ROBERTS ROAD BRIDGE PROJECT
MARCH 14, 2007
DISCUSSION:
Caltrans Grant Funding Status
Per Council direction, staff applied for Federal grant funding to replace the bridge and a grant
application was submitted in December 2005. Staff was informed by Caltrans in February 2007
that the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) for Federal Fiscal Year 2006/10
has been approved which included $259,000 in grant funding for the design of the Roberts Road
Bridge. The Town's local match requirement for the entire project is estimated at $304,415 and
is funded with GFAR in the FY 2007-12 Capital Improvement Program. The Caltrans process
for funding Federal grant-funded projects includes two separate phases and two funding
authorizations. The first authorization is for the Design Phase which the Town has received. The
second authorization is for the Construction Phase which will follow the completion of the
design and preparation of bid documents for the project.
Recommendation to Re-open the Bridge During the Design Phase
Since the Town has now secured and received grant funding for the design of the bridge, there is
a policy question of whether or not to re-open the bridge during the design phase which could
take approximately two years.
As a reminder, the bridge was closed to vehicular traffic in 2005 because the Town did not know
whether Caltrans would provide grant funding for the reconstruction of the bridge. Taking this
uncertainty into consideration, it was recommended to close the bridge to vehicular traffic until
the outcome of project grant funding and specific timelines for the construction of the new
bridge was determined.
Now that the bridge reconstruction funding is secured, re-opening the bridge for approximately a
two year period with weight limit restrictions and monitoring, as discussed later in this report,
could be recommended.
Neighborhood Impacts/Issues
Staff held a meeting on February 13, 2007 at the Los Gatos Neighborhood Center to provide
residents and neighbors with information about the bridge construction schedule, answer any
questions that the residents might have, and inform the residents that staff was prepared to
recommend re-opening the bridge during the design phase. This meeting was attended by 21
residents. A summary of resident comments/questions from this meeting is included as
(Attachment 2). Some of the key points that were brought up by the residents at this meeting are
as follows:
• Concern over continued private development projects on Roberts Road
• Use of Oak Meadow Drive (a private road) by vehicles including the Department of
Motor Vehicles to get from Roberts Road to Blossom Hill Road
• Lack of pedestrian facilities along Roberts Road
• Access to neighborhoods impacted by the bridge closure
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: ROBERTS ROAD BRIDGE PROJECT
MARCH 14, 2007
One new issue that was raised by some residents was the improvements to Roberts Road from
the bridge to University Avenue. This section of Roberts Road is partially improved with curb,
gutter, and sidewalk on some sections and with no such improvements in other sections. There
are older and newer houses alongside each other with their own unique street frontage
appearances and right-of-way widths. In addition to the above, there are utility poles adjacent to
the edge of the street that serve the properties. This combination of the above features is not
unique to Roberts Road. There are many streets in Los Gatos that were initially County roads
with no improvements and over the years became part of the Town. There have been incremental
improvements on such roads. Making improvements to Roberts Road from the bridge to
University Avenue is a policy decision separate and apart from the bridge project.
Improvements would have to be programmed as a separate project with funding allocations. The
Town has a wide range of capital projects that are considered for funding annually, and any
future roadway project on Roberts Road would have to compete for funding with other projects.
It is important to note that improvements to older roads are not as straightforward as building
curb, gutter, and sidewalks; they almost always require additional right-of-way acquisition,
utility relocation, drainage improvements, and grading and reconstruction of the road.
Roberts Road will continue to operate the same way after the construction of the bridge as it had
before for many years. The only difference will be a new and safe bridge which will be striped as
a one-way bridge with stop signs at each end of the bridge.
Bridge Closure Impacts
Roberts Road serves as the main access route to residences and buildings on the east and west
side of the bridge. Each neighborhood has its own issues and concerns regarding the closure of
the bridge. The following is a summary of these issues as communicated by residents.
East Side of Roberts Road Bridge - The Ohlone Court neighborhood is a residential
community that has its only access from Roberts Road. The majority of these residents have
indicated opposition to the continued closure of the bridge, as their direct access to University
Avenue has been eliminated.
Complicating their access issues, the Festival of Lights, which is held annually in November and
December at Vasona Park, is another source of concern to the residents of Ohlone Court. This is
due to the increased traffic on Blossom Hill Road at Roberts Road during this time period. The
residents of the Ohlone Court neighborhood have communicated to the Town in the past two
years, as a group and individually, their interest in reopening the bridge for all users, especially
during the Festival of Lights event, so that the residents can access Ohlone Court via University
Avenue and Roberts Road and avoid the congestion at the Blossom Hill Road intersection.
Another concern identified by residents are activities within the closed and barricaded section of
the bridge. They mentioned that bicyclists and skateboarders that use this area are creating a
hazard with vehicles when leaving the barricaded area and that groups of youths, who gather
within the area and smoke negatively impact their quality of life.
i MEWMMMM N4 - F,
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: ROBERTS ROAD BRIDGE PROJECT
MARCH 14, 2007
West Side of Roberts Road Bridge - There are three streets (Oak Meadow Drive, Monroe
Court, and Forrest Court) on the west side of the bridge that use Roberts Road as their main
access route for residents and office buildings. There was a wider range of opinions on this side
of the bridge as to its re-opening or continued closure.
Many of the residents on this side of the bridge have expressed their interest in keeping the
bridge closed due to reduction of vehicle traffic on the road. The street has become a version of a
walking and biking trail for some people, with easier access to the Los Gatos Creek Trail. These
residents consider Roberts Road a residential street and not as a thoroughfare or access route.
Additionally, since the closure of the bridge, parking has become a problem on the west side of
Roberts Road, with a new dead end area east of Oak Meadow Drive. Vehicles are parked in that
area adjacent to the "road closed" signs.
Some of the residents on the west side of the bridge perceive the bridge closure as a traffic
calming measure and have asked the Town to install speed humps and other measures on the
road. Staff has communicated with these residents and have informed them of the Town's Traffic
Calming Policy and procedures and their option of initiating traffic calming for their area if they
so choose.
In addition to traffic calming, some of the residents on the west side of the bridge have proposed
the concept of a one-way Roberts Road flowing from Ohlone Court to Oak Meadow Drive in a
westerly direction. Staff does not recommend this approach as it introduces new elements to the
operation of Roberts Road which staff believes would create more confusion and frustration to
motorists and would create difficulty in enforcing a one-way road operation.
The maintenance of barricades installed by the Town in 2005 for bridge closure is another
concern for both the above residents and staff. There have been multiple incidents of vandalism,
including individuals breaking sections of barricades and pulling the entire barricade out of its
anchors from the pavement.
Residents have been concerned about these incidents, the overall look of the barricades, and the
constant problem of having trash and debris stuck under and around them.
Next Steps in Design and Construction
After receiving authorization from the Council, staff will begin the process of selecting a design
consultant in April 2007, based on Caltrans guidelines for Federal grant funded projects. Staff
plans to bring a report to Council for the award of a consultant design contract in June 2007. It is
anticipated that the design, review, permits, and approval process for this project will take
approximately 18 to 24 months to complete. With the project design phase beginning in spring
2007, the project construction phase would begin in summer 2009 and a new bridge would be
open for public use by summer 2010.
As required by Caltrans, the Town initiated a monitoring program for the Roberts Road Bridge in
winter 2005. This Monitoring program will continue until the removal and replacement of the
bridge. Town's structural consultant has been performing quarterly inspection and monitoring of
the bridge, and based on the latest report of January 2007, there is no further settlement of the
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: ROBERTS ROAD BRIDGE PROJECT
MARCH 14, 2007
bridge foundation and scouring of the mid pier. There are no scour protection counter measures
needed at this time, and staff will continue to coordinate monitoring and inspection of the bridge
with Caltrans during the design phase.
If the bridge is re-opened prior to construction of a new bridge, the enforcement of weight limits
could be mitigated with the installation of restriction bars to ensure that large trucks (e.g. garbage
and moving trucks) do not cross the bridge, while allowing access to residential vehicles. The
most cost-effective approach to enforce the restriction of heavy vehicles at any location is the
installation of a physical device, rather than staffing from police. This restriction can be achieved
by the installation of bars across the roadway at each end of the bridge. The estimated cost to
install weight restriction bars and signage is $7,000, which is much more practical and
economical then having police officers patrol and monitor vehicles crossing the bridge.
CONCLUSION:
Staff is seeking Council feedback and direction on the recommendation to re-open the bridge
until the construction phase of the project. With the monitoring program that has been
undertaken and will continue until the start of the construction of bridge, staff believes that the
bridge can be re-opened safely for vehicular traffic with weight limitation for heavy vehicles
until it is closed again for bridge replacement in 2009.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Replacement of the bridge is subject to CEQA review.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost to install weight restriction bars and signage estimated at $7,000. This additional cost is
not considered part of the bridge replacement project, therefore it will be absorbed in the Streets
Program operating budget (5050) during FY 2006/07. Funding for the grant's local match
requirement is estimated at $304,415 and is allocated and approved in the CIP for FY 2006-07.
The project's estimated cost includes inflation, but once the construction phase is reached, it is
possible the construction cost will be higher with a resulting higher local match. At this time,
there is no change to the project's design or construction costs.
Distribution:
Peggy Willey, 134 Ohlone Court, Los Gatos, CA 95032
Anne Lamborn, 7 Monroe Court, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Geri Miller, 327 Oak Meadow Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032
Kim Gavin, 132 Ohlone Court, Los Gatos, CA 95032
Attachments:
1. Council report dated December 5, 2005
2. Roberts Road Public Meeting - Comments and Questions
_ COU C9PT AGENDA REPORT
z1`i~ _=`3q~'7
C - 1BEP ! `005
'IEE T I t E: 1 'fit
ITEM ti 0. i
t
TO: L A-- OR AND TOVV ~ COUNCIL
1
PROM: DEBRA J. FIC=ONE, TO l MANAGER
7B-L,- I ? WT: REVIEW 'UPDATED REPORT ON THE ROBERTS RO D BRIDGE .=AND
SL
PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF
REC0MMENTD AT10N:
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
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.
r " , cr ~ ~
PREPARED BY
OH-UNT E. CURTIS
)hector of Pares and Public Works
Reviewed bv: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Clerk Administrator
Finance Community Development Revised: 2i 05 : ~0 pm
Re#ormatted. 5/30!02 N:';B&E\COU~FCIL REPORT S`roberts.rd.bridee nda:e ; J, _ pd
ATTACHMENT 1
L
PAGE 2
MAYOR A-ND TOE N 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 I
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.
GF
`A Y`L-',R -~,ND Tv v LUL' CTL T~
. T T ` REPO RT- O , l~ THE .Jli i J ROAD !.?P`.j J - + L•
L,I J- 1. Pti a PD A TED J (-L
tt -i rt 1 'T'r-
^t 10,01 5
or any budge re eiviiA? an uitSatlS aCto'` rating, Call` a ls re~ulrCS Iilejl iS d1c lvli torOVi d i 1
TLv - r r-e b r;-~^a ian
V1 Action achieve iYle necessary structural upgrades is if rldge 1S to b ve used 10Y 1 ; vt1,5~1.
bicycle or vehicular traf c. Since Roberts Road Bridge is currentl open: to pedestrians and'
icvcies,
Los Gatos Must SLlbr111t a Plaii of_ACtion to CaltranS, JJ111C1i iS due in December, 20 0,7. T l e Jla 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 - tune.
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 A-.11 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 on the 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(a)(1) of the Town Code. The report states
that the brloge is he eldest remalning brldge In Town and is "a good example of a reglo nul.
.vernacular variation on the small; rural, early reinforced concrete highway bridge. T- I report _ sc
concludes the bridge°s association with the transportation and roadway development ~eliOd in tie
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.
r.;-- _ r rY-1111°i
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOVviv 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 creek
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
waterline.
r~ j
MAYOR -,,-ND TO',-N-N COUNCIL
S B.? CT: iii VIE UPDATED REPOR i ON Trite R ClBER i S 1 v:' L1) B UD(D 001D
PROVIDE DURECT ON TO STAFF
DECEKBER 1, 2005
ADwments
The bridge abutments have experienced deterioration throughout, caused by fail lire rld aging
concrete and widespread cracking. A close inspection of the abutments shoe oids and holes in We
concrete with severe cracking and spAHng of the concrete. The consultants noticed :awl absence of
reinforcing steel below the concrete surface. It is not clear it this is an isolated problem, or it it exists
throughoutthe struca re, whichwould increase the cost estimate for repair. This tyre of repair would
basically reface the aburment with new concrete and fill in the cracks and voids. The -estimate tv
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 follo,s:
c osm
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 e?zs; -e the
continued operation of the utilities supported by the bridge.
1 -
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
MAYOR AND TO'~. ~ t 01, '_C1T.
S 'B3ECT: Rf FiE1A,_ ~pDATED REPORT 0--'\-, THE ROBERTS RO 1,31 BRIDGE ADD
pR01 1D 1E DI EC_ T10N TO S I AFF
ECE rzB R 11 , 2 Uf_j5
`is midge k ~e Continu to be closed t
In additlDnf to veh (A-S. De nan"nt and v suailv,,. epta ie
closure barriers ,:would need to be installed. Repairs to the mid-pier and abutments are -stimated at
$4`95,000 to $600,000, permanent barriers are estimated at $10,000 to $20,000_ and repiacernent of
the railings is estimated at $71 000 (depending on the design alternative for the railings, this cost
could be greater). The total estimate of this option is $$2,000 to $757,000.
2. A. Jpen the bridge to all traffic. following needed re airs.
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 saf tv features. As noted in a previous staff report, the width of a new bridge
.vouid 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 str-Ict re.
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 DIRE CTION 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
~~IA'OR . LyD T0`; COUNCIL
SUBu CT: RE r- ~-Tye D AT ED REPORT ON T HIE RC ]BERTS RO A D --ZJD : D
DROP 1 DID-EC--IONTO ST. ~r r
1. Bridize Closed
A. Close the bridge to all traffic, inciudlrig bicycles and pedestrians. Monitor the bridge for
further deterioration, with the intention of repang the bridge as needed to ensure the
integrity of the utilities supported by the bridge.
B. Keep the bridge closed to vehicular traffic with t ihe addition ofpermanent, visually aitractive
barriers and sigma-e. 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 ofthe Roberts Road bridge would be subject 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:
T he fiscal impacts associated with each of the options are presented in the staff report. If the Council
directs staff to repair the bridge in any of the options, funding would need to be prograrnrned in the
F 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 9503?
Kim Gavin, 132 Ohlone Court. Los Gatos. CA 95032
tiachr rents:
1, Caltrans Bridge Inspection Reports
Caltrans Plan of Action report
3. Historic Evaluation Report
4. Cost Estimates from Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc., May 10, 2005
. Emails and petitions from residents
-T
T 1 0\7
Tu1v ?004
Mr. John Curtis
Director of Building oz Engineering
Town of Los Gatos
P O Box 949
Los Gatos, CA 9031
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, recommendations
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;
THONIAS J.
a~ RRI? GTON
Office Chief
S Trucure dlainterance In4"esti-ations - North
T' C"OSUr°S
~ ire j
C?l ~tll i~l i,
=4✓ti IJT
A Y T 4CI-IINIE- T 1
"C<dna;e improl+e.r mobi(fty across Cal foraic;"
3 FIT
r-
Page 1 of 4
DZ A.RT 'T OF TRANSPORTATION
&AW Structure Haintenanca & investigations
a9ffMWW
Bridge Inspection Repea=t
STRVCT`DR~ NAb3E: LOS aATOS CRF-XXi
Year Built . 1928
Year widened: N/A
Length (m1 35.9
Bridge Ft =ber
Facility Carried:
Location
city
Inspection Date
inspection Type
Routine Group A
37CO343
ROBERTS RD
0.10 MI S BLOSSOM RULL RD
LOS GATOS
01/13/2004
_ Uhderwdter Special Other
X j
i~
Skew (degrees): 0
No. of Joints 0
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 2 12.5 m
man CAPAC~RA210t39
Design Live Load: OTHER OR UNMOWN
Inventory Rating: 12.7 metric tons
Operating Rating: 19.9 metric tons
permit Rating XXXXX
Posting Lead Type 3 N/A
Deck X-Sectiont 0.38 m r, 6.1 m, 0.38 m r
Total Width: 6.9m
Rail Description: RC wall
Min. Vertical Clearance: Unimpaired
DE9CRIPT20N MMwm STRUCTmm
Channel Description: Earth, unimproved
Calculation Method: LOAD FACTOR
Calculation Method: LOAD FACTOR
Type 3S2 NIA Typa 3-3 WA
Net width: 6.1 m No. of Lanes: 1
Rail Code : 0000
HISTORY
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 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-
REVISIONS
The following ELI Elenents 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 spalls 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.
?rinted on: Monday 03/01/2004 07:46 AM
CIibPOF - www.tasflo.com
37CO343/AAAD/3914 -
i
v~ .
As revioesly reported, there are spa-2-Is with efflorescence evident *_2roughout the soffit. A fww
of these spalls have been previously patched but the patches are beg~~ing to fail with several
exhibiting ex---Posed and corroded reinforcement. There is an outstanding work recoj=endatio„ ^ons
1/13/2004 to remove any unsound concrete and patch the spalls that should be cazapieted.
Overall the genera! quality of the concrete in this structure is poor with the concrete
exhibiting numerous _ pockets and poor consolidation.
As previously reported, the northeast corner of the bridge rail, including a past, is severely
cracked and apalled, mere is an outstanding work recommendation fron 1/117/2000 to repair tsey
drmaged 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 gxade. The scour visible at Pier
2 is not particula.rly 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 2' below the lowest point on the pier wall.
overall this structure re=ina is in generally fair condition as of this investigation.
SIGNS
,one Lane Bridge" signs are present at the approaches.
R$COMlSENOATIONS
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 campleting 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.
I~Shffi4T = N RJLT31M -
F ElemElement Description
# No.
01 13 Concrete Deck - Unprotected wl AC
1Overlay
01 110 Reinforced Conc Open Girder/Beau
01 220 Reinforced Conc Pier wall
~01 215 Reinforced Conc Abutment
01 331 Reinforced Conic Bridge Railing
101 359 Soffit of Concrete Deck or Slab
WORE REcQmmmATTONB
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
3
7 M.
0
0 7 0
0
3
14 m.
0
0 14 0
0
3
52 79.
0
52 0 0
01
2
1 ea.
0
0 1 0
0
_j
RecDate_ 0111312004 Estcost: As per the Hydraulics investigation an
Action :Sub-Scour Mi*_iga StrTarget: 1 yFAR 6/3/2002 this bridge is scour critical with
Work By: LOCAL AGENCY DistTarget: the potential scour elevation at Pier 2
Status PROPOSED FA: extending below the bottom of the footing.
AS of the recent routine inspection on
1/13/2004, no work has been performer{ to
address the scour potential. 'phis condition
should be iassedaately addressed by the long l
agency. The local agency is to provide
adequate scour ca=te-measures to ensure the
stability of the bridge.
Printed on: Monday
:,IihPDF - Siww,[astio.coni
03/01/2004 07:46 An
37C0343/A.AAD/3914
a F (:T_
Page 3 C3 4
RecDate:
01/18/2000
Action :
Work Hy:
LOCAL AGENCY
Status :
PROPOSED
RecDate:
01/18/2000
Action :
Work By;
LOCAL AGENCY
Status :
PROPOSED
RecDate:
01/18/2000
Action :
Work $y:
LOCAL AGENCY
Status :
PROPOSED
Inspect
Estcost: Repair the damaged portion of the bridge
StYTarget: 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
CHI)POF - wwwJastio.com
%3U "IG
r
C61330 m~
v^rEXP c0CrN34 2D05
37C0343/AAAD/3914
U
Page 4 of 4
STRS?C_U_RZ Tx _ RY ADM APPRATSALT RZPpRT
as ZDZNTIFICATION .f<•••r-....a:.
;1) -TAT- 7AiF- Cis {nhiA 069
61 Si7tuc-in k- 'Eft 37C030
(5) .tiRY RC T"°(CN/UN`DER?- ON 170000000
(2) HIGHWAY AGENCY :=STRICT 04
3) OUN fY CDDZ 035 (4) PLACE CODE 441-1-2
(6) %.ATi,'RE INTERSECT i- LOS CAT05 CREEK
(7) FACILITY CARRIED- ROBERTS FD
19) :'0C 7ION- 0.10 M1 S BLOSSOM )JILL RD
(11) MILEPOINT/KILOMETERPOINT 0
,12) BASE HIGKOIAY NETWORK- NOT ON MEET O
(13) LRS IPvYEN'TORY ROUTE & SUBROUTE
(16) LATITUDE 37 DEG 13 MIN 55 SEC
(173 LONGITUDE i21 DEG 58 MIDI 22 SzC
(98) BORDER BRIDGE STATE CODE SHARE %
199) 50RD3R BRIDGE STRUCTURE NUMBER
STRUCTUME TYPE AND MATERIAL ~•.....e.
(43) STRUCTURE TYPE lAIN:MATERIAL- CONCRETE CONT
TYPE- 'PEE BEAM CODE 204
(44) STRICTURE TYPE APPR:MA:£RZAL- NOT APPLICABLE
TYPE- NOT APPLICABLE CODE
(45) NUMBER OF SPATES IN MAIN UNIT 2
146) N,IMBER OF APPROACH SPAM 0
(107) DECK STRUCTURE TYPE- CIP CONCRETE CODE 1
(148) W&hRnC SURFACE / PROTECTIVE SYSTEM:
A) TYPE OF WEARING SURFACE- BTTUXINOUS CC47E 6
B) TYPE OF MRIWMRANE- NONE CODE 0
C) TYPE OF DECK PROTECTION- NONE CODE 0
AGE AND SERVICE *+.r+w a+rtss.
(27) YEAR BUILT 1918
(106) YEAR RECONSTRUCTED 0000
(42) TYPE OF SERVICE: ON- HIGHWAY I
UIMU- WATERWAY 5
(28) LANES :ON STRUCTURE 01 IINOER STRUCTURE 00
(29) AVWAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 1664
(30) YEAR OF AIM 1985 (109) TRUCK AM 1 4
(19) BYPASS, DETOUR LENGTH 2 HIT
r GEOMETRIC DATA
(48) LENGTH OF KAXZMLM SPAN 22.5 N
(49) STRUCTURE LENGTH 25.9 m
(50) CURB OR SIDEWALK: LEFT 0.0 is RIGHT 0-0 M
(51) BRIDGE ROADWAY WIDTH CURS 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- 90 Ti mim 0
(34) SKEW 0 DEG (35) STRUCTURE FLARED NO
(10) _AVENTORY ROUTE MIN VERT CLEAR 99.99 M
(47) _TWENTORY ROUTE TOTAL HORIZ CLEAR 6.1 M
(53) K-oq VERT CLEAR OVER HRI.IXIE RDWY 99 -99 M
(54) .;IN VERT UNDERCLSAR REF- NOT RIRA 0 . OO M
155) wr_N LAT UNDEE2CLE_AJR RT REF- NOT H/-RR 99.9 M
;56) Pitt LAT 9111 ERCLZAR LT 0.0 M
NAVTGA!'ION DATA R..+.4.tS.. f..i
3S) NAVIGATION CON^_F{4L- NO CONTROL CODE 0
11) ?I~2 FFROTECTION- NOT REQL-ZRED CODE 1
139) T~AVIGATION 'VERTICAL CLEARANCE 0.0 M
(116) 'MR? -LIFT BRIDGE NAV MIN VERT C L?.AR M
(40) NAVIGATION RORSZONTAL CLEARANCE 0.0 N
Printed on: Monday 03/01/2004 07:46 AM
C1ibRD~ - :ro~vw.(a5fio.C`am
.............f...a
5 uyF1CI.'-.NCY RATING 31.2
n
STATUS STRUCTURALLY ZEFICIZUP
EAL': r I M LIC = 54 .0
?AiI1T CONDITION :=FX ~dtt
CI.ASSIFICATIO2v
u,
(112 )
NEIS BRIDGE ,Et`+ 'N - `-TEES
y
(104)
HIGHWAY SYSTEM- NOT ON NHS
s261
FUNCTIONAL CLASS- LOCAL URBM
(104)
DEFENSE HIGHWAY- NOT 51RAHNET
0
(101)
PARALL-I, STRUCTURE- NONE EXISTS
N
(102)
DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC- 2 WAY
2
(103)
TEMPORARY STRUCTU:RE;-
(105)
FED. LANUS HWY-
(110)
DESIGNA'T'ED NATIONAL NETWORK - NOT ON NET
0
(20)
TOiA.- ON FREE ROAD
3
(21)
MAINTAIN- CITY OR W=ICIPAL HIGRCYAY AGENCY
04
(22)
OWNER- CITY OR MUNICIPAL KIGHWAY AGENCY
04
(37)
HISTOP.ICAL SIGNIFICANCE- NOT ELIGIBLE
5
CONDITION C+.}DE
158) DECK 5
(59) SUPSRSTRt3CTURE 5
(60) SUBSTRUCTURE 3
I62) CHARNEL & CKAIa)EL som7mC'TION 5
(62) CULVERTS N
LOAD RATING AND POSTING rs..• CODE
(31) DESI(M LOAD- OTMM OR UNK)UAT 0
163) OPERATING RATING XZTNOD- LOAD FACTOR 1
(64) OFE6ATING RATING- 19.9
(65) IINE TTORY RATTING METHOD- LOAD FACTOR 1
(fib) INVENTORY RATING- 12.7
(70) BRIDGE POSTING- EQUAL TO OR ABOVE LEGAL LOADS 5
(41) STRUCTURE OPEN, POSTED OR CLOSED- A
DESCRIPTION- OPEN. NO RESTRICT70M
APPRAISAL CODE
(67) STRUCTURAL EVALUATION 3
(68) DECK GEOSET3CY 2
) 69) UNDO. VERTICAL & HORIZONTA . N
(71) WAT8R ADEWACY 5
(72) APPROACH ROADWAY ALIGNMENT 3
(36) TRAr"F'IC SAFETY FEATURE.. 0000
(113) SCOUR CRITICAL BRIDGES 3
PROPOSED IMPROV`?MERTS ....I.••••••
(75) TYPE OF WORK- REPLACE FOR DEFICIENCY CODE 31
(76) LENGTH OF STRUCTURE IMPROVEbM" 34.906 H
(943 BRIDGE INPROVEM2M COST $289.000
(95) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT COST $29.000
(96) TOTAL PRC,7ECT COST 5+34,'000
(97) YEAR OF IMPROVEMENT COST ESTT~TE 1999
(114) FIITt7tE ADT 2100
(I 15) YEAR OF FL" iTi TZE A DT 20_10
.i.i.+...f..a.... .'~.SPgCTIOP:S .f..,....rt:..f.f
(90) INSPECTION DATE 01 / 04 (31) FRE7jZNCY 24 no
(92) CRITICAL FEATURE INSPECTION: (93) CZ DATE
A) FRACTURE GRIT DETAIL- NO -140 A) Gll 1
B) UNDERWATER LISP- NO -im B)
C) -.HER SPECIAL ZNSP- NO MO C)
3'7C034 3 /A,A_AD/3914
p
C -L-
ry;< r` o^ 0. o `T s BLOSS-Om Hz-. .D
city Los GATC
Inspection Date _ 22-JAN-02
Inspection Type
Bridge Inspection Report Routine Group A Underwater Spec_-_ 0-_e"
I u
Name : LOS GATOS CREEK
CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION
''fear Built 1918 Skew (degrees): 0
?ear Widened N/A No. of Joints 0
Length (m) 25.9 No. of Hinges 0
Description of Structure . Continuous RC _ beam (2) with RC butt-ress abutments and RC pier wall, all
founded on spread footings.
Span Configuration : 2 @ 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 eons
DESCRIPTION ON STRUCTU
Bridge width 0.38 m r, 6.1 m, 0.38 m r
Total width 6.9 in
Rail Description : RC wall
Min. Vertical Clearance : Unimpaired
DESCRIPTION UNDER STRUCTURE
Channel Description : Earth, unimproved
Net width : 6.10 m
No. Of Lanes 1
Rail Code 0000
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 3#110, "Reinforced Concrete Open Girder/Seam", 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 4110 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 malls 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 $
Dockets and poor consolidation. Repair any unsound and spalled concrete as per previous work
-eco.unendations dated 01/18/D0.
The northeast corner of the bridge rail, including a post, is severely cracked and spal'__d. Repa_r _T<ag_i
ra~l_as per previous work recommendation dated 01/18/00.
This structure remains is fair condition as of this investigation.
SIGNS
"One Lane Bridge" signs are present at the approaches.
Printed on : 07-FEB-2002 01:18:31 PM
ter)
Br:37CO343 Dt:22-JAN-02 Key:A.zu3
-7 id i
"Tom-, Ns
a_ 6vors By
k
Prog. -noc
?.emove any unso,-d COiCrere and patch the sDalis
=0und _n tre soz
v. nosh spars.
--am Rec. Date Work By
Work -
=rog ?ethod -
18-FAQ-20,100 City Agency
40343X000I8X
Y,az=-= =rye damaged pc=---,Di-. of the bridge at
the north=east corner of strlac--ure.
-elit-4 Re Date Work By
WorK Try
.rou. Method Cost
3 18-J..A7-2000 City Agency
40343X00018X
F ESS/0,
Inspected By : Brad Walter
c~
No. 45862
m
p. 12-31-02
zo
Registered Civil Engineer
LP CIVI\-
gTF
cQ~
OF CA1~
3r.37C s43 _ ~2
i',
I N. `I z, w r.. ~
r _ _=087
_-._.r..
069
S)
=.'_TL?E
37003.13
(5I
JE?TORY R01TUI ER) -Div
1 50 000000
(2)
HICFINAY AGENTTCY DISTRICT
04
(3)
COUNTY ~:OTJE 085 (4) PLACE CODE
441112
(6)
FEATURE INTERSECTED - _-3S GATOS LREEK
(7)
FACILITY CARRIED - ROBERTS RD
( 9 )
LOCATION - 0 . 10 14I S BLOSSOA. ?TILL RD
i1)
?ILEPOINT/kILOMETERPOITT
0
(12)
BASE HIGHWAY NETWORK - NOT ON NET
0
(13)
LRS INVENTORY ROUTE & SUBRO'JTE
(1-6)
LATITIME 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.<++++.++++<,+ STRUCTURE TYPE A.',M MATERIAL
+rr+++++++.
(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
rr«xrr
..++«++«++.++rrr.r.+++ AGE AND SERVICE,
rrxrrrxxxxr
(27)
YEAR BUILT
1918
(106)
YEAR RECONSTRUCTED
0000
(42)
TYPE OF SERVICE: ON - HIGHWAY
1
UNDER - WATERWAY
5
(28)
LANES: ON STRUCTURE 01 UNDER STRU
CTUR 00
(29)
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
1664
(30)
YEAR OF AD, 1998 (109) TRUCK ADT l%
(19)
BYPASS, DETOUR LENGTH
2 KM
rrr++rr++++.+r+rr+ GEOMETRIC DATA :rr<+rrrr
<::rrrrxr+
(48)
LENGTH OF MAXIMUM SPAN
12.5 M
(49)
STRUCTURE LENGTH
25.9 M
(50)
CURB OR SIDEWALK: LEFT 0 M RIGHT
o 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)
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
0 M
(55)
MIN LAT UNDERCLEAR RT REF - NOT H/RR
99.9 M
(56)
MIN LAT UNDERCLEAR LT
Om
>,+>..+.++.+r+<++.+ NAVIGATION DATA ++++r.+++++rrx+.++
38) NAVIGATION CONTROL -NO CONTROL CODE C
(111) PIER PROTECTION - NOT REQUIRED CODE 1
(39) NAVIGATION VERTICAL CLEARANCE 0x
(116) VERT-LIFT BRIDGE NAV MIN VERT CLEAR. .`1
(40) NAVIGATION HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE 0
STATUS = STRUC-1j RALLY DEFICIE,%P1-'
+Y... -17DEX = 07.4
CLASS171CATIOti .>.,F..,.,,.++..
_12) NBIS BRIDGE LENGTH - YES
(104) HIGHWAY SYSTEM - NOT ON NHS
(26) FUNCTIONAL CLASS - LOCAL URBAN
(1-00) DEFENSE HIGE'WAY - NOT STRAHN-IT
(101) PARALLEL STRUCTURE - NOISE EXISTS
(102) DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC - 2 WAY
(103) TEMPORARY STRUCTURE -
(105) FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY -
(110) DESIGNATED NATIONAL NETWORK -NOT ON NET
(20) TOLL - ON FREE ROAD -
(21) MAINTAIN -CITY OR MUNICIPAL HIGHWAY AGENCY 4
(22) OWNER - CITY OR MUNICIPAL HIC PVAY AGENCY
(37) HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE - NOT ELIGIBLE
CONDITION
^•^+xr.r.x..+...+.
(58)
DECK
(59)
SUPERSTRUCTURE
(60)
SUBSTRUCTURE
3
(61)
CHANNEL & CHANNEL PROTECTION
(62)
CULVERTS
N
rrrxrr.xxrrr LOAD RATING AND POSTING +++...r.xx.
CODE
(31)
DESIGN LOAD - OTHER OR UNKNOWN
0
(63)
OPERATING RATING METHOD - LOAD FACTOR
1
(64)
OPERATING RATING -
;g q
(65)
INVENTORY RATING METHOD - LOAD FACTOR
_
(66)
INVENTORY RATING
(70)
BRIDGE POSTING - Equal to or above legal loads
5
(41)
STRUCTURE OPEN, POSTED OR CLOSED -
A
DESCRIPTION - OPEN, NO RESTRICTION
+r.*+.+.«xrrr.r+rrr APPRAISAL rrrxrxrx=:.=x+,+.+, COL:.
(67) STRUCTURAL EVALUATION
(68) DECK GEOMETRY 2
(69) UNDERCLEARANCES, VERTICAL a HORIZONTAL N
(71) WATER ADEQUACY 5
(72) APPROACH ROADWAY ALIGNMENT 3
(36) TRAFFIC SAFETY FEATURES 0000
(113) SCOUR CRITICAL BRIDGES 6
rrxr rxxr:xrrr PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS rxrrr,rr+++++4.
(75) TYPE OF WORK - REPLACE FOR DEFICIENCY CODE 31
(76) LENGTH OF STRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT 34.9066
(94) BRIDGE IMPROVEMENT COST $289,000
(95) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT COST $29,000
(96) TOTAL PROJECT COST 5434,000
(97) YEAR OF IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATE
!999
(114) FUTURE ADT .."00
(115) YEAR OF FUTURE ADT
++„+..++x++++.r+++.+ INSPECTIONS
(90) INSPECTION DATE 01/02 (91) FREQUENCY „C
(92) CRITICAL FEATURE INSPECTION! (93) CFI Da.^
A) FRACTURE CRIT DETAIL - NO MO A) Oi.i 01
B) UNDERWATER INSP - NO MO S)
C) OTHER SPECIAL INSP - NO -1 MO C)
- g T (Y)
Printed on : 07-FEB-2002 01:18:31 PM
Br:37CO343 Dc:22-JAN-02 Ley;.= g
.
I'
ELEVATION; Looking at Northerly Side
04-SCL-Co.Rd. BR# 37C0343, Los Gatos Creek. 02;22/02
DEP AR1 Mr_.- T O -rL_k SPORTATION
i)?V1Jll) V L .J l. f~.~JiJT Si
=C S
? 3C: ?
PHONE !O i ci - s,
Jepterlber 74, ?Uli>
N11T. John Curt i's
Director of Building & Engineering
Town o-Los Gatos
P O 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 cr tical 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:
nttp://www.dot,ca. Qov/ho/structur/strmaint/ 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:
http: %%w-y,,-~~.,.dc)t,ca.gov/h-q/LOCIIPTOgrams/dlae.htm).
Sincerciv,
}
TERRY L. ABBOTT
(.miller D ',,rzsion of Local .41SsiS'Lanct
.=,11.x' VJ u.T
BARTON NEWTON
Slate Bridge Maimci,aiCV Ena'n eer
"Colrroa improves rnobilih, across California" Attachment 2
STATE OF C.ALIPOR.NIA - BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY AP,NOLD SCEi'W PIZEN, EGGER, G-ci
DEPARTIVIENT OF TR kNSPORTATION
DIVISION OF LOCAL ASSISTANCE - MS.I - N STREET P. 0. BOX 942873
SACRAMENTO, CA 9427+-0001 Fiecyourpov.wr-!
PHONE (916) 663-1776 Be energy effiicieAt'
FAX (916) 664-2409
TTY (916)663-4086
Scour
Bridge # Structure Name Code SR SD/FO Facility Carried
37CO343 LOS GATOS CREEK 3 31.2 SD ROBERTS RD
1 Bridge(s) in your jurisdiction
"Coltrans improves mobility across California"
coil
"7C-0343 3 ONN N : 3F L0S
GATOS
I
' acatIon
0-1 MILES
SOUTH OF
BLOSSOM
HILL RD
Facility Ca--_'ied
ROBERTS RD
ti a -me
LOS GATES
C RF;Ei
Plan of Action Biggs Cardosa Associates, Irc. ! Date of
Completed By: Dan Devlin j Completion: 11/1ii'OS
%
Scour Evaluation Summary:
nuPng a field investigation on 01/13/04 conducted by Caltrans, approximately 1'-2" of the Pier ? footing
was exposed along the west side. Severe erosion at the slope of both sides of the west abutment vvas
observed. In the hydraulics investigation on 6/3%2002 using the average degradation rate combined vvitl
the existing crossing section, this bridge was evaluated under calculated flows during a 100 -Tear event.
The potential scour elevation at Pier 2 is expected to extend below the bottom of footing. Based on tl`lis
detail review, this bridge is determined 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. In the 2004
inspection, conditions worsened to 1'-2". Inspection 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 N Spread footing ❑ Pile Extension ❑ Footing on Piles ❑ Unknown
b. Foundation Material ❑ Known Z Unknown
Scour Review: Done By: Daniel Zuhlke, Caltrans SM&I Date: 01/13/2004
Structural Assessment: Done By: Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. Date: 11/11/05
Critical Elevation: N/A
Geotechnical Assessment: Done By: None performed Date:
Critical Elevation:
Most Recent
~u:s-Dection date
01/13/2004
_e 11 3 ~CCUr
i
T4-
ILn ,1) Ci hS ~1CtL: e
Item 61 Channel & Channel Protection
i
5
a
j
Item , i Vateruvay Adequacy
6
Ii
A. Completed Countermeasures:
The bridge has been closed to vehicular traffic since March, 2005. The bridge i11 be zonitored 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)
Z 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
4 C ()T N7 L IZ'\1E'T_R T1II I T I ~`T SC`gEDLI E t
Countermeasure Implementation Project Type:
❑ Proposed Construction Project
Lead Agency
❑ Maintenance Project
Advertised Date:
Other scheduling information: monitoring is ongoing; Repair or Replace option of the bridge will
be detennined by Town Council in December 2005.
E r- 'IT W
Tjoiiitorin _rt r.
llC O 'ii L i=7Oi11LGi h° bridge Qurln° i,-r _"Gu 'li` i spC i 1 ._i v J
e.-d--_ i
n,. , ui han . e: sarLaCi fooLln QS and for budge se 'z=enti. 511 Id _i t z D ar
♦ '"i ' ar1 Vo z j n' - o U X11 r gtric il
be lanse ` :7 ~ Q Y.i oTT
sip, icahad~ 1 i a uC ora.ion; t1 he brid , L i _l 1 t
on
,vul be cared e Santa Clara Valley V'at r D stri. t hen i ;,_eio j; rate ~ t `k- A
eaCileS {?vfS, i!e Straff will survev the "fridge de r for siZ?is of found3: ioni _e ltm i_t.
llor tonne on*:n n a ~a41-V basis until rio~v s subside. Town personnel T,vill con1-aci L he Santa
ey ~v ater District ar d Can'm-ans to discuss what action should be taken if siauficant flows continue d
sir cara scour degradation is observed.
E
Monitoring uthority: Town of Los Gatos
I2ebular Inspection Program of 2 1r MO. ❑ w;surveyed cross sections
Reins to Watch: xposura/underinining of the spread footing at pier ?
❑ Increased Inspection Interval of _12 mo. ❑wrsurV eyed cross sections
Items to Watch: the footing exposure at the piers acid any channel bed iraterial erosion a ter
each hich flow
❑ Underwater Inspection Program Frequency mo.
Items to Watch:
❑ Fixed. Monitoring Device
Type of Instrument:
Installation location(s):
Sample Interval: ❑ 30 min. ❑ 1 hr. ❑ 6 hrs. ❑ 12 hrs.
❑ Other
Frequency of data logger downloading: ❑ Weekly ❑ Bi-weekly ❑ Monthly
❑ Other
Scour-critical discharge:
Action required if scour-critical elevation detected:
17, 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: 117 1 lrr. 13 hr. _J6 ltrs. ❑ OLi1er ? nrs
Scour critical elevation:
itQr .n i, ;d it scout-critical ele Llon aeLeiLed. CIOS Lhe Gil
i
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 11yleasurenient Results /Monitoring Device ❑ Loss of Riprap
❑ Observed amount of Settlement 0.5" Z Loss of Road Embarilu-nent
❑ Debris Accumulation
❑ Other
Pet-son / Area Responsible for Closure: John Curtis, Town of Los Gatos, Public Works Dept.
Contact People (Name & Phone No.): John Curtis, 408-399-5774
Responsible for re-opening after inspection: John Curtis
01
t
Detour route description (route number, from -
to, etc.) - see attached map.
Average ADT: 20625
Year: 1964
% Trucks:unlmown
Length: 137.8 ft
Bridges on Detour Route:
Bridge Number
Waterway
Sufficiency Rating/
Load limitations
Scour 113 code
37CO104
Los Gatos Creek
95.1
unknown
* Prior to closure, Bridge ALIT: 1644 with 1% trucks.
Town Of Los Gatos
Parks & Public v or4 s '_)tpart ent
=1 Miles Avenue
LOS Gatos, CA 95 _
E: Roberts Road nridge Historic Resource "valuation
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,
Carm Petersen.
rc ._ectura , _._toran
. .tta~h.T?7
_ 46,_ _ r -..r ; _ ATTACHbfEN, 3
0%.3 73
o J ~ ~ ~ ~rCI7
J f~f
J
t-ri J~~eA_
7
n
_o~atlGn: d=ot to( PDh cation ! v;nrestr:--ed
tiu^ty: ='-ire
b. USGS Quad: Dntn: T: R:-S:
Adid:" u 5 w : i=kat78 a'" J - R -a d _os S;2i0s, Catrf. Ir' vim:
!Prat G4vm ,-on~ mar; "--ne, or i3^.°ar ;(ag:,;;c%sj 'G ie MEt iii
her Locationai i_iala. i-.y• Pr,.oi f, directions to .es-ajn--, eie,,atlon, etc, as ap-propriale)
r 1 S Gat05 Creek.
_Orated v.'9 miles svUCn of Blossom viii Road oVp I~,,
P-sa. Description:paes~;De resource and its major elements, include design, materials, c-andiuon, alterations, size, settir,, and bcwndarasi
nicer ed
.d;a~ent to the berxi in Roberts Rcad, between Gak M- ea:}ow Drive and Ohlcne Court, Los Gatos Creek and Los Gatos Creek T,--B are
by this two-span re ntorced concrete bridge connecting two residential rm s. i hie apprux4nateiy e t'.y-five feet span ova me weak is
renhj feet vide alloy ng o vehicular rack one way at a t€rrte and no sidewalks. Of deck girder construct: ate substructure consists of two
con=te girders spanned by shallower secondary beams and supported by flared wing-wall abutments and a single centered pier- A ve the deck,
straight, unarticulated concrete railings with rounded caps run across the span and on the wing-wafts. Three vertical posts on each side feature
recessed parceling and rounded overhangs caps and divide the span railing irdo two sections. A straight and level beveled coping is continuous
a:--rss the ratings and , e4evatirig~ shgahtty at posts. AM exposed surfaces are plastered and a8 square ctxne€s arc beveled The
is reivorced with 112 she steel rebar, now visibW in areas of detencratim The dew surfew has been paved and repaved r e asphak
ovemor.~ con m some places. Two rrw holes are located near the wwKt-walls a^A a van* of pipes ti~rn fie ~ of
0110
raiirti-^gs and he suhstr e.
'P3b. Resource Attributes:(fast attltKfts and codes) W19. 13r
*P4. Resources Present: Building 2. Structure Object Site ! District Clement of District Other
P51b. Description of Photo 'I view, date, etc :
South elevation from Los Gatos
Creek Trail, 10!5/05.
'PS. Date ConstructedlAgeiSources:
Historic Pmhistaric Botts
1918, orittal plans (Parks & Public
WrIrks D.-Q , era
*P7. Owner and Address
Town of Los Gatos
P.D. Box 655
Los Gatos, CA 95030
*P8. Recorded By:
{
Carey and Co.
P,; 'TM
450 Bush Strew,
_
-09- Date Recorded -/5105
Yoe:
- - 4
RsAor: Ciiatii}it~:'-~_- =_^yf?:~ _ -TI a ~ -ther svur =5, a enter'rsne"i
re - S ou alio -Ai_r.. -)Zyi
V
CU;C S r qen y G ar)
.i_ENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION ~~trt
DEPAR~Tr~.
BUILDING-, STRU11- TUR\ , ~;ND 05JECT RECORD
NRHP Status code:
Page 2 of 14 Resource game or (Assigned by recorder) Roberts Road e -dge
S1. Historic Name: Roberts Road Bndoe: Cypress Avenue Bridge _
52. COrri rill of . I'42 i°:„_t7b R ad "B- ridae
134. 'resent Use
n`e
K. Dr ICgIr a Use W iiU ~
`B5. Architectural Style: Reinforced corkrote deck carder type with simple vernacular ornament
136. Construction History:,construction date, alterations, date of alterations)
Orioinally constructed 1918.
No major alterations to the bridge structure, confrguartion, or railing elements have been made.
tv;inor alterations include: suspension of piping along outsides edges of parapet and posts and below deck: repaving.
'B7. Moved? No -Yes Unknown Date Original Location
'B8. Related Features:
B9a. Architect: J.M.C. Walker, City Engineer b. Builder.
`1310. Significance: Theme: Post-WWI Reinforced Concrete Bridges Area: Los Gatos
Period of Significance: 1918 Property Type: Bridge Applicable Criteria:
(Discuss tsnpor Lance in terms of hisiork al or archttecgturat context as defined by theme, period, and geogn3phic scope. Also addregg bil y.)
Roberts Road Bridge in Los Gatos, California, is currently classified as "5, not eligible for the NRHIP", on the Historical
Significance - Local Agency Bridges database maintained by the Caldomia Department of Transportatiort. Carey & Co. has
assigned the bridge, a "5S3" status code, indicating that the property appears to be individually eligible for local meting 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.
6 Additional Resource .Attributes(List attrbutesand codes) r- -
812. References:
See attached continuation sheet for References. OAK
HEADOV
f12s PARK.
813. Remarks:
Historic Resource Evaluation
814- Evaluator: Carin Petersen, Carey & Co. Inc.
`Date of Evaluation: '0/5/05
;2,., . e rF Giilcial comment
{ `.'CRTH
ii
LOS GATOS
CREEK
~ 1 ! tr r--.
~f - I f
READ
BRIDGE \l.
DPR 52" B (1195) 'Required Information
L,l a 2 x"31 a£Ji - $~-y'~: a l'Tl
r- °s~u3 'ate-e f'. R m
j;1 iitlUU~s.,i~
Bridge apgraarh =om west, 10/5105
oi ?ifo-nia - l h Re-sources , n~ ency Primary
)I;l'A3' MEN i OF PARKS ALN"D RECRLATION HRI#
--O TI TI FION SHEET Trinomial
p'.1ge = of 1 "Resource Name or r -migm-fd by mcordm- Roberts Road bridge tit.%ZE)
"Recorded by: C rey & Co. `Date; 10/05.2,005 ~ Continuation
*i 7, ft' 4 1 .r
k
-Mg
!t`StPiICtUP~ showing west ab.-rment 2nd nter pIcr.
lipd
N P ARIKS AND RECFE j ION Wiz?
wRtSourcc aruc u:
R_coracd bv: Ccln?` ua-;on
It
~ F -
1'
Decorative post and railing with coping, 1o,15/05
`5 - of C IIfi) l_lu - The Resources Aaenc} Prlri ~r~' i
DEPART f_EE4T OF PARKS-AND RECREATION HR-14
C0 Tom' ~ ~ 1 O SHEEN Trinomial
r.ge 5 of 14 -Resource Name or ;t k~f an--d D'r-tordcri i\= .~S' i C<-a mndi- t tivj
°F;ecorded by: C~ 'e_- 9° Co. °DLte: 1 „v ,;2005 X Continuation
t•
Jr^
c.,
• r'
'~J
ma
;
.
_q _
,
.
iy
Parged railing with beveled cop
ing and rounded cap, 10/5/05
t~F13Ze
11 armssese. 1 0; - ,
',nu-wa II rc f.ng C. r7c"C, and Sidewalk connection, 10/5/0
pnmuin,
r3~,. ..tome-_-' _NDR ".Cl'"-A~il_}_N HP-1,
D at -US-'
Co to deterioration at post and rading., 1015,105
11
IS e E -A-ND
L _
la.
.,f .aa d -
.ep r y, u i3u t~a,irl?n :}:.a-z
vrit-a ..I-a as ;`1.... y ..+4 .~..,~n- 1ndiams j~ol tr -_x- i.:t ~C3sr. C!k 4 in i _='_.A.
4:._ e zv;`il?i?t 0V r1-_w u,:'7CI t eXL i iCi_- a'] in Gie eaPiy i:rite te l l t Sl. iC n
c Los -atos, h,# a ' el, *'-'as 4^ 3Pt o to ;ose Miaria Her a 1Q°Z =1 :-)-_ha -aa_n 2
U ,n
1'itn uiu,. ti I~.:.._,.~.....~ C.:te area r,lund ;h?~ ~Ur;ng iae a'S'+! -d',.ri:aFiC3I? p ly -I fflaz-
i-n n1 ?w1
re,,1 3!v.3g ..._;a,os {..r:.°k 3rollnti t.a° TioL.1I mlli r
L aC 5 pPiie :J
ne city or L os t-j2tos was inativ MCvrporalea in 18U(.
initially c~actle and sheep ranching were prevalent in the Loa Gatos area. =However, by 1878 and drit =Ivai of d-!e
Southern Pacific aC122C Coast I'.3ilroad, rrUlt growing was becoming the dominant SililS In °SS, both in Los liatos and the
i
Santa Clara Valley in uenerai. The railroad facilitated snipping, and soon the local fruit industry was booming,
Fruit growing-related industries and inventions also characterized business development in Los Gatos at this
time.
Around the turn of the century, additional railroad passenger service aided in further e~ lishing to to*M and
the west bank of Los Gatos Creek and brought "tourists, picnickers, summer residents, commuters, wid heal`
seekers" to the town.' Outlying areas began to develop with both the fruit industry and residential grovoth. By the
195-3s milt ;rowing v.•as no longer the primary industry of Los Gatos. The area carne to be dominated by
residential use, especially with an increase in population following the end of World War 11. Today Los Gatos is
Maracteriaed by its upscaie homes, antique stores and art galleries.'
Cypress Avenue, located northeast of the town center, was established with the fruit industr, arowEh aNW to the
turn of the century. Early properties new the street included Califomia Condensed juice Company and Los
Gatos Ding Works, as well as scattered residences.' Though a bridge had already heen =.sr:ructed across the
reek at Main Street, immediate demand arose: for a second crossing to the north. Local historian William A.
'.gulf 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 :Parley 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 Chrot.g; to l YpresS Avenue prompting John J. Roberts, owner or i60 acres an rile east Si e of r oS l~ tos
f9 j
-rate o:` Cririrr:zla-Tiie Resources Agency Primary
I) 'PAR Ni lENT OF 'APdKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Pti,e 9 of 14 *Resource Name or N ed by retard:; Robe tz c[aud Brie (.Ff> ° I
'Recorded by: Cared Co. yL?ate: 'tJ/C 010 5 1H) Continuation :3 - date
(-,I i
Co petitton r-0 a i1 L.7Cl `C1 C%'t 02C fi om CvpresS NtV?nUe :OS~Inc il-e :,,C°:.k and h;5 Iand s, to Co?1r'
jn Jose ,.~_i;i. !'.oad,' . t`tuS :.he ,!rS. a::iUn .-i; Ah h%;aQ L.t~?n e:'?CCed. 1 `cn
c,unstruc Lion
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 Fo7 St. I'X <i
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 io 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.
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 comm are to be beveled, all exposed surfaces plastered, and the deck to be covered
in 'ii" oil and screening.' 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
ood example of an early small regional reinforced concrete highway bridge.
Evaluation:
i
iI_ `1CiLt[ rtal Rer~ter o Historic I?L~CeS (1\1~i-11) e`;ait.ati',~ 13 prop-My 5 lilyti3i'!C stgnlflCartCe b'.•seL .^_:n the i_A' %
i %rf!itt`_'F il-e .t ...ti n_,3i C; v.'ttrt Mitt that ha- -c ma
dc 8 k :nL..'3i r.._
_ t,._:"ti;'rr„ - ;,fir FiicLorV.
i !d.
~_..iOle rit :'I °!P_'w _ L41UC i0 ZAMC71C- ?SGr^_L"I r.tVeV1 i iirk: !,iTTte, ! n
t uC . -i .:i=.n i.
P7e "-31
1 - .s -i
_.n. :-4i araf = 'r°ces gencyy Prig, ar
-i - i c N P,ECRE.4,Tlt,N
_ € y i.. . ,J H., T rinorniai
11 -Rcspuree Name or
uruL t_ vV
_ -
?nrinI.-S iC,u .
t!?4,~
s....
a..---~ C~i ..",.:t' t ;:..k i_, ,-..."r,
u,i
se:lr a
-d- ui
ii.ul L iz -1T -P .
$ 4hoSe
,D nv:iLs+ imi, ta~i .1. :uis u: i_.._.:1
enoi. D 11 o l. Psor ner> -les La have ;ic' dea or ta, oe L-1 1 -1 r IatiOn otentla . aat - I 13
rinit;rtan`l 1ri nr~ : tor° o r story,
;n to .lisroriC -_ndic3nct, .an _ -R- _ u_~ - i•_~ti i.~. i-des a deterrCl.},-._.:on o Ph 1 . . ._...¢''Tttt,
~.rDOert-v abd ty CO convey its' istoric signirlCan', tiitcgriiy v'~n51s Cs Olt Sever, asp~ctS~
materials, wore,'-manship, 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 1985 survey conducted by California Department Of 1 ransportation
(Caltram). In Carey & Co.'s professional opinion the bridge does not appear to be individually
NRHP eligible.
To be potentially eligible for individL" listing on the ',,T-,H-P, a structure trust usually be over 50
years old, must have historic significance, and must retain its physical integrity. Since Robe
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
si,pninca-m association with these historic events and developments (NRHP Critcria A), Under
lRi-lP CPter lon , aT l-liVai mscarch yielded no informmdon indicating an association with
siznificant historic individuals or entities.
T'noueh Roberts Road Bridge is an example of early rural reinforced concrete highway bridge,
under 1rTRHP 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).
Tat ~.tsl:TC""•_ i}. oT al Rem ces (CRHR) evaluare5 a resources tllstanC Sinniricance "-cU _7T: 7P
F~ 1
State of C ilil(7r?I tti - r resources Altgenc}` I rl Flydl ` µ
DLP- Ft"T1EE T OF P;^ RKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CON I UA i I O ST ET Trinomial
Pa e of'_ + *Resource Name or ~ ,-yip ed h r°zorr::e ; Role Roan Rri. e (1-i )
Recorded by; ' ar =i Cc. 'Date: (1'05'2 Z Continuation ❑ Update
'.)Cei.tlalj I':e3~~Uf~.e.. ti 3r d or 1;:3Va he po entia t'.. ; i-=t
it lRf.:~.::.ar1o::
iiilpoitant Co triic preh;s-Ior;' or history of the local area, California or the nation..
In iad_sition to HR evaluation includes a determination of physical integrity, 0-, the
Histor ic sign i.fi IC~_nce, a CR
authenticity of an historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that exist4d
:d g 'e:lC) of si nLllCanCe.: ny resource listed in or determined elimble to' r listing in "h 1.4 P,
t s
ll;CiP.Q Cite re50urc?'
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 I 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 Toum of Los Gatos, Municipal Code, .Sec. 29.80.224, 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 (I) 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.
Desi,rmated structures are regulated under procedures outlined in the Municipal Code.
Due to the replacerricnt and alteration of the bridges of Los (Gatos, Roberts Road Bridge is now
the oldest remainirig bridge in the town. Built in 1918, it is a good example of a regional,
vemacular'viriaciuri on the small, rural, Carly n!i111forCCd concrete highway bridge. It is also an
.iri ,;late; r_cl ICI. _.f t t>.st- %I road improvement :end en< ineering. It is (---tarty & Cn.'s
pr_)Iessiona1 _-pini-)n that while the structure does not possess sufficient significance to be listed
rri_ tia`ivi:a _i`~ttI or the Caitio, .Iii RC_=lstCr, m tiSi)viation with the -ransportat;cr. ally
35 .rt n5tr.3 do . t?'e and nrC al I t v Sul ti i,c i
I l_ e',Tc t D. F•r:;: !r r: ill o un-ii t)I Road . irl --houid ke - g9nCd the .i:.lus
_"dt ailii? _:.at it appals. individuaily ..ii'lole Cot local listing on
E ND.
DEPARTMENT OF PARRY AND ESCREAUCON P1,R1#
C 'i L-_aT ate-
Page 12 of 14 *Resource Name or I A-mund by r--oraw Wherm Road Midge (FIRE)
u.i. ble a_ -._tp , vvit ' lasgalos.corTy 4 tn- d in W.. ...-.-,mss. ~ r l
Baggerh John S. _ = vied With Bab r.ul W. neadlli _ Los Gatos _ ii o r . li °j• f cccggssc{ ,
August , 2v.,rrr3& at :-;rrrl ,%1h'lt~'.IrJSv aCt7S.~Cfiut~s.a 4ur.',p ...newL L,``,yKaB puMis +eD in Los a.-
eP,rlett, Ptlardi, i'71C '?s of Long .''~i go: A l..e±iry' of People, Places & Progress wow Town of Los Gatos i` me
Cities of Sa-,=ga and Monte Ser enD. Los Gatos, CA: Marten 4 roc., 1987.
P1acr'., r ,rChibaldurOT) Of ;19"*es• New York: Wirt eSe}' House, 1:36.
Bloomfield, Anne. Las Gatos Historic Resource Inventory. San rancisca, CA: lAlnne Bloorniield, 1991.
"Bridge Basics - A Spotter's Guide to Bridge Design," [Gnline], Accessed 7 Gctol-t- 2003, available at
htty.l/pg;iu idges.comq'basics.htm.
Brun, George G. The lHzsr4 of Los Gatos: Gem of the Fooruhuflhl. Fresno, CA: Valley Publishers, 1971,
Bn;nt_, George G. "From Wildemess to Village: Los Gatos' Early Days," L os Gatos History [Online]. Accessed Y
i`1ug+ust 2005, available at http://w-A`w.losratos.CDIII~lI istoil'; U:'t:n tt'ec'iriy.ClCil1. Excerpted from T".:S LO7^? o
Los Gatos, published by Valley Publishers (Fr, sno) iri 1971 and republished by Wi -tern Tanager Press in
1983.
~r
Cali*omi.a rJeparanent of Tranrtation. 'Historical Significance - LznTd Agency B--16g= Santa Clara ount'y."
Calunns Structure Maintenance and Investigations database, Gctoltr 1, 20-01.
Conaway, Peggy. Los Gc_-s. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Press, 2DO4.
)ailas, Alastair. Los Gatos Observed. Los Gatos, CA: Infospect Press, 1999.
,-i_Sant,-_ Cia;-a V ally: IrnrWes a;f the ,
DeMns, ..a.a C, r. Ann Pit, 7Thitesel1 Sant,-_ Past, ~n osc, Calif-: can_ °
!Vust:uirp, _usvu iation, c-1977.
-5, P
v - ` ha. i. _ _ u _ - -
-g L
FT
i_ff)r-im 1 he Resources Ate nc1' L~2-}I2ia i`}'
D EPA R T'' E T `.:>f' P,-',KSA_ND RECP-E.A I ION HRI#
CONT Nt i TIO SHEET rinornial
Pnr,e i of i4 Resource Name or # (MS i =--d iNf J Roberts Y~Oaa ~5ri ( u" EE)
'Recorded hv: t re- Co. -Date: i0/05 ;W5 M Continuation
p to
L.dIi`1Oii1;2, a, L:1- ..mot enCyClOp"'413 [L.1r..lne Accessed 3 AunusC P_l~l, .',~1;,''7t?
lrl`..'~.1°stcr, `.11'`in,-, and ~,2e ~'1cAl-_5tM. A Fte!u G1utdE' w American -Houses, New York: Alfred -,V Knc)4, -J-10'
McCulloubh, C. B, economics of Hignway Bridge Types. Chicago: Gillette Publishing Co., 1929.
National Park Service. ,'--law to Ccnnplete the National Register Form, National Register Bulletin 15AWashinar ,n
D.C.: National Park Service, 1991.
Payne, Stephen M. Santa Clara County, Harvest of Change. Northridge, CA: Windsor Publications, 1937.
Petershagen, George F.. Buildings and Bridges: Historic Preservation and Caltrarts. 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 &t 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 lyfercury News clippings file, 19210-1985, San Jose Public Library, Califomia Room.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps. "Los Gatos, Calif." 1891, map 1; 1904, maps 1,2; 1908, maps 1, 3, 15;
1928 and 19"44, maps 1, 4, 218.
Santa Clara County and its resources ; historical, descriptive, statistical. A souvenir of the San Josi Mercury. San Jose,
Calif.: San Jose Mercury ublishing and Printing Co., 1896.
panty Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory. San Jose, Calif: Santa Clara County Historical Heritage
Commission, 1999.
Sawyer, f:.ugene T. History of Santa Clara County California- Los Angeles: Historic Record Co,, 1922,
h_ernain Opvn1 [ ` , } „C5- No, t0 Traffic Los Clams News Gn:tnF' AC.°_' SP4 ' 0
a,7.l.s_.c 2OerS.~O.ala:Ch:'vC,S,1wttl?l~tJ~~ t,flk
a~fr ? ..t,_~ i 1_os `;aum Wel.i: . fr es 29 S-r-irr-mber 2:04.
,
Ct {.i _..'rt , t a" _ . lV f or ,*h t:a.d, cai ..and iigh4vC: } t 1,e
..1
UT.
- Q
State of .~:i 'G: Fi r31::`ce{ ~'sgel C1' i .#3; '4`
i}r.P. ,R ENT OF PARKS A3 D CREA 1 N H, #
~ey
- _ _ Los _ Ch,....,_. of _ 2 ~ ,
t.... R _t Bodge = Road
v ,~Ifl -X ~i~.. A.
Town of WS Gum
ENE D.
California Historical Resource Status Codes
1 Properties listed in the National Register (NR) or the California Register (CR)
_..1_,I~-~~., tt• 0; tl rjle teSO'.:rr..' DfWe Ly !rSted w, N np t„e K,?-?Der. !~...;ed in trie `k..
J idle- :trai Oii~per v'~ Iii°`.; in fit{ ~`f' illy ^er. US{efi In i;e
I _D ' t o i the rr, c ,.Qnmbu Q- to a d'_.,s` i or muinpie ert}- - sere ~'"I'•',4,
individual arc: e y by he
_fisted in the C as
Register - includes Star pis.. a^ marls an •u , c {r o cgs
:r,atrcail•. red in the Caiifcrnic _a a r,
interest nominated after Decenhber 1997 and recommended for listing" by the SHRC.
2 Properties determined eligible for listing in the National Register (NR) or the California Register (CR)
rrT:. _ : t-voe :'v^' r . c~ ar ndivtdUal proflt__"^` and a- 3 rC^i CC 3t: ~ih,tve ~!i~.. ?5~
L:~t in the C. Pa 2D Contributor to a dam determined ~yible for NR by he Keeper. L s ed in the CR.
D2 „tributor to a district determined eligible for NR by consensus through Section 106 process. i.isted in tfhe u2..
'D3 C ^ntributor to a district determined eijgible for NR by Part I Tax Ce. tificat;cn. tiALd in the CR.
Conti! for to as district d2termri ed ellg;ble for NR pursuant to .7eCflDr1 106 without review by ~HPO. Lis tra 6^ t;ie curt.
'S In= ividuai property determiners eligible for NR by the Keeper Listed in the OR,
2S2 ndividual prope ty determined eligible for NR by a onsensus throuci) Section 106 orocess, Lit d in tni e C-R„
2S3 Individual property determined eligible for NR by Part I Tax erdt~ 3ton. L fisted in t ~ CR.
254 individual property determined eligible for NR pursuant to Sermon 10without revie=w by SHPCI L,sted in the Cit.
tCB 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 Regist& (NR) ar California Ftegister'(CR) through S -rvey Evaluation
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 bath 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 Appea-m-~etigiiilefor°(afaonatReais# r(t#R)-orCalifit~rnla-Reglstei r(CRY ugh` recr t is -
4CM Master List - State Owned Properti=es - PRC §5024.
S Properties Recognized as Historically Significant by Local Government
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 cantributor to a district that is locally listed,
designated, determined eligible or appears eligible through survey evaluation.
6 Not Eligible for Listing or Designation as specified
6" Determined ineligible for or removed from Califomia Register by SHRC.
61 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 panning.
DaterTnmed inellalbie for NR through fart I Tax Certification process.
erermiri"d i 'ih Ca ' to section 10)6 mthaul, review h -H .
6i_; ^li able for dt.an,. ~ PO
`iW R ^fi'ded ftCih° NR d'y the beeper.
;;Y Ccrt,-mir->d ineligible for the NR by aHRC or K?-c,R°_r.
.1; NR by ,a, ter for uqin ae..?la _v~ p( - 5S '3-~.
Not Evaluated for National Register (NR) or California Register (CR) or Needs Revaluation
Ggc e v..'_. U-jailor Of a ian `);_i not Jc: 'YaIU af_"d.
!K KecAlbrni-*ed to QHP f^r 3 tiJn iuf ti ;i f ~':;'alu3t°t.
:late it tGn l andmare-s 76 r-.94 ',4,tu of Hi~ta, al l,iL _s'.sled -riot a„ _ L e_r X
_ DIE
to M~_
l; rG t`< 11:,a ;rrn° h: `il' ter `_co 4,1
ry .1 K. ...5 1
iua Oi Vv
1.., ~._J .__o.,na dr --e I eve' pr ";yr.1t .n IJatpd
J Y -Wn,
11"" it
,-,y ~ -atos
v. . vnd, =nets F1~ yr Vg= . Re airs
wear Mr.
1i Itsvi son i =..s..t=t=~v ~.,-'g t 3- 51 g ''aJonst1 L3..+LI ii1 i Inc. has ..t ~--f~.sd--~i a ,:.£3 t--a inspection to thee
Roberts Road Bridge, reviewed pe anent plans and rep' ela_tec to this ~tri€~i#i~re as
requested by the Town. It is our unde standing that r-,s;~e is being given to
perform r airs to this bnidge to address its various deficiencies. it is important to point
out that the followia g wost estimates are based on our i> vesbgation and inspection cif the
bridge and assumptions regarding retrofit scope. Detail construction costs can be
submitted, after the preparation of engineering bid documents by the Town.
Mid Pier and Foundafon
There is substantial erosion and scouring of the foundation in the middle of the creek.
T his pier is critical to the stability of the bridge and its failure would cause the collapse of
the bridge. Repairs and reinforcement of Ns found will require excavation _of
nnel and dewatering or diversion of aeek flm a and the consbuction area
Die to the unknown creekbed soil condifion , e=avation fbr this re oftwork could be
tirie consuming and empersive. In addition, tiers are fffnitations r it€ access for
equipmerrl:., Fish & Game requirements and water distribution agency coordinatiori
issues. Depending on whether diversion or dewatering is required around the wcorksite
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
T he deterioration on the abutments includes, not only longitudinal and transverse cry,
but also failure of concrete. We noticed on several lotions the absence of reinforcing
steel 2"- 3" below concrete surface at spalled areas on the east abutrnent as well as
aggregate size and size variance in non-conformance with current industry standards. It
is not clear i; 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
doweiing and steel reinforcament, it is estimated the cost for performing repairs to both
a tri ^*a ° °ill e app_j-cX: lately $330,000,
n
Deck an-1-1 Sol-fit
T Mere are several areas on the bridge sortftt, which have failed c()nG"ete sections and
exposed reinforcing steel, Based on previous experience from similar jobs reaui tng
r--pair of this kind of concrete failure, it is estimated the cast for performing repair worst 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 bier wft 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 Greek for the Town of Los Gatos.
The construction costs for these retrofit project were substantially less, primarily because
these bridges were newer, disc 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 Garrido, P.-.
Project f5.1.Tnager
uI , C uls - ob is -
Date: ni -n-, A
- --4;'li>
Dear Mr. C-ui tis.
'ma , esident a'21 I Oast 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 doom the closed area and enjoying Los Gatos Greek - or
simply meditating on the
bridge.
Not to mention a signincant reduction in noise, particularly from speeding late-to-school-and-back traffic, that
became
Possible due to bridge closure.
In tact, prior to the bridge got closed, Roberts Road had become so loud and unsafe to kids due to intense trar-ic,
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 1 pray this decision is permanent.
oday, Gerri Miller emailed me that you're working on Roberts Road-related report to br7ng to the council on
ecer„;uw- 5th
_ .,_-`~`r~ °-obat7s hj.dV-- -.'V~ed for ira- c won t be Ci.~iP.,
,r,
D'S 33 2
v__ J U
Docu-n-1lts%20a21d%?OJSett'nRs~useri ocal%1 OS-lhP?s,,Ttmnn,CiW,, )0f7(1 ~4TV 1 1rj?9 'In
Patsy Garcia - Re-open the Roberts Read Bridge
From: • <GakMeadowDe_ taI@aol.com>
To: <manageri lostdatosca.gov>
Date: 11/30/2005 9:05 PM
Subject: Re-open the Roberts Road Bridge
CC: <GakMeadowDental@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 once
is located adjacent to the bridge at the comer of Roberts Rd, and Oak Meadow Dr.
We have had an increase in parking problems since there is less street pacing 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 okiW very worn
and dQ 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 aloowea
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.
Thank you for hearing my concerns.
Robert Dyer, DDS
210 Oak Meadow Drive
Los Gatos, CA 95032
(403)395-1121
0 in
idge ri eeting TOO pm --k website also send an ernial stating why you want the drudge open.
send email to mianage_r_~los aC tosca.g~v no later than Thursday
make sure the petition you sent over will be part of the agenda if possible call ahead.
file: 'iC:`'\Documents%20and%2OSettings\pgarcia\Local°/o2OSettings\Temp\G W } OOOO 1.HTM
1211.2005
" U-1 :.Li.i. ow 1ir1a iS`1 L:-...i if"vi
t vaii to a.aidre- s Lue town council's o ' Cecision on the Roo- Roa.1 3 7 .
tl.-c vote i =u - sads d on w hat t i_ k' t bn d_ shout ? iz all 11 T w'
_
t3" €rte 7n `n(i T 7., z,~r3 ; y which ..rvi
iu ~ -u "Vil• A decision way ~de ~ 1 otlt i:u is L 4~L se
e idge erm~mutl to vehicular traffic, while beeping it open to peidest a_ns and
;niiis `?tom' ~ -this `c`~.s ''1 i'ce' sf ~'iv is -
ott , v;~ or.
u.n ~ 4u W the Lo n and h 'i t- o pa
for he cost, in the prior couric;l me-e i 1& the Town Council voted to clod M
bridge because they couldn't a crd the mated cost of l,t?C'rJ,t` Q,) to i--pair the bridge,.
`rte hat + e To c c 1 d d 't nova or go, W not answer before they t 9
Th- didn't !mow if the bridge was historic, but assumed it was.
. How touch is the cost of putting up safety railing for the bridge?
J. How much is the cost of repairing the middle pier and abutments, which'
vontributing to the we-dmess and safety of the bridge?
4. How much is the cost of securing proper supports for the utility liners which are
currently suspended from the bridge?
4. How much is the cost of required seismic repairs?
How much is the cost of the planters that were suggested to give the bridge a
"ple ing look".
6. Haw much will the ongoing cast of maintaining the platers and watering the plate?
7. Does the Town carry liability i urn on the brio?
8. Where is the Town going to get t money for the previously mentioned
modifications?
What are the Fasts?
1. This is an old bridge built in 1918 to support a fanning 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.
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 1u1OST 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. Thy cost of anew bridge is estimated at V,-001000 and Caltrans will fund S8% of the
C st, i his offer may not be available a year from now.
Thy Cost U o_r In o•. ildi~ the n SJ new w b_ idge to the To
INM
is i 50,000 based wl Ih_- .eniaininy
ii
t
_ocation o2 1-he M Eh on t=O3i..
air - r. n .J te
; t}, arc7t k..i.L~i.}.~s.. ra.s raa+'•-,--.s x_> ...,i +
1 ..az.-tea. z..,.. ,.3.i taii
-1.1 pl s.l _ .~ii.13 s..~: .
age va er sLjr vs an oic }°cI s and Y ehl: 3lar ic.
y. The new oridae can b- stnoeo fo one lase bridge with Lop s`-s at ends
-1 F,:
We would like the council to reconsider their decision and compile the facts. The
Main Street 13ridge Wed many years ago because of flooding. The town was aware D-
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 packet? 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 mare the right decision.
Concerned Voter and Resident,
Kim and Jim Gavin
132 4hlone Ct.
i
to -
A are neic~~ ors of : -Lu[~L }s~1 =atos abdiv i(tan ~3a a adTja g t
~g'a `.3l.ili i v a. -l k e o Mine Court. YT;L en-Joy i.h`t
e `•e14{-a. Y~ ~„rZ' 1Cat
1~ ' 3 Z
the
3` 1 ve u1 N* 3 -ta I ar l io ~'i~ ' 1 li liar `ri ' ' C L3 1 azlo
_ T _ _ 3
t . i pY Pu - - the - `.A t 'P'F3 ^a c a.'F'#
+J S11'J11e~. o"i F~_.i `v. ai,aeii YV. M t e * u'J l.z 'YT 31. c`r 1.. LO bypass the tra.ittc
ti .n estio3 { --c-, _ fill Road use? t Roberts Road Br-:,d g-- Th*
f
ear the Robe -s ad 11 ld~e is dossed. he past, he ~a~~~ dire- is
VN ou d not et us Bunn left onto Blossom Hill Road roan Roberts Road. They
would only allow tie residents to turn right. This is a major lInconvenience
to he residents. We are requesting that you allow us to t~. m either wav or if
TOV-krn
open the brzdae for 5e holidavs.
Possible 'nave the 'k
The Residents of Los Gatos Glen
B
-Antew DEC
hrisuna IA. Fantino, D.D 's & Robert E. D •cr, D.D.S. 11Y
210 Oak Mcaduv, Drive, Los Gatos. CA 95030 - 1499
2 s
forl f s u ti " r c_ ; oujo / :.J {.i-•U E (
i
t; rz .ti w~h}
O r c l C ti. 3 t' C C eS s r~ t! t si i~
i~
no -par) j C t ( i j^ '1Z} w ri ( uS ~i ~?"t q-S u `t r t i W^'r7
G j. i zki t v ~s.~ c r
lr' T ~
cows "D its o cz { s itgyo f__~ M
7; ~ , -
--AMA 00
J - -
A " 0V 00
jo LTkrv '/7, L-•Ct Lk ,-tz i i r Y-
cam f AA"
~
i
CM,
_v
a9
a~
tT~~
>3c
ry
C
0
M
i
_
D
CL
~
Q
L
4
CO
C
C)
t-
i
a)
c
7
y
s~
y
'
Z
~i
I
i
J"~a I i
i
I'
z A
i
,
l
6~,
i
VN'
_.1 r#
IF,
CIA Z'
n ;
i i
s-s
izIN
I~j
10
~I Rill
v uF"
- i
4
z
j
v
i
It's
I
-jI
S
C;74
t
111 I } 1
i
ICr-v I +
C'N
i
+
-
~ kk
t j
L!
v
3s
1
,m
-441
zi;
VI-I
~Ai
izil
k
I'
F•°--` ~A
i
~t
t~"?fie.®t ~s
ro
.1
~~'~)s..+~
} \f ,4i
1 J 3°
I
i
#
1
4k4
-I
'
F` %
{ 1
j ~
~
l
ea
~
~
~
I
(k
~
~
S
j`
-
;
~
s
' ~
'
1 ~
~
-
ms'
t_
i
der
t
i I
c,
i
I
_
d-3.L
• ~3
-+1
(~yj
/
I
t
-
~
1
77_
1
PC-
0
~
O }
t€g`I }
E3
As I
(
t
' s
' 1
7
r /
14,
t
f
.
f
t.
N
4O u'S
Ln in to
J i
I
II
C-0
I m
co ~o
nr.
co
COI
t-D
~c
_
.
~d 15
c
Ad
'
I~A
>f n~
~
fi
'k \ S ~ ~
~
Tom- I
ms's
h
;
-td
-
is
i
1
I
i
I
$ i
i
{
~r
~
7
+
;fig
V
f~•
f
~ i
'
~
I
3i..
I
I
i
st~
~
I
;s
n
i ~ I (
' E
i Yom}' ~ L 1 1
1 ,k
v C-71
N
. NJ
( 4
JLI <
I ti k'
t
t-., _ v
C 'N ! =
>
f7
N,3
f I i N sue`
- m~
~i
I
~ IS
v
J
s
3 Fu" , 'wl
Roberts Road Bridge Update Meeting
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
6:30pm - 7:30pm
Los Gatos Neighborhood Center
Comments and Questions Received
• I live on Oak Meadow Drive - have heavy traffic, even though it is a
private drive, increasing wear & tear. Want bridge open ASAP..
• With weight limit to 10 tons, will bridge remain stable? Why would
we not open the bridge?
• Why was bridge closed originally?
• Would like to keep bridge closed. No sidewalks on Roberts Road.
Why not just build a pedestrian bridge to encourage pedestrian &
bicycle activity?
• From the east side, the only way to get to Westside (during bridge
closure) is through three (3) stop lights
• There are kids on skate boards, smoking & impeding vehicle travel.
• Did the private study indicate the bridge's integrity is higher than
Caltran's evaluation?
• Think bridge should be opened with weight restrictions (height
barriers). Town should work with Garbage Company to follow rules.
• On Roberts Road, from bridge to University, should have sidewalks.
• Road has been there a long time, not the bicyclists. Strollers take up
street.
• Part of the road that is a problem is pedestrians who continue walking
in the road, following trend after leaving closed area. Cyclists come
down fast and is dangerous.
• If you open it early, is it still 35% integrity and is that sufficient to
open bridge?
• Is there a plan to open it?
• Most people I know on Ohlone Court would like it reopened. Those
who originally wanted it closed now want it opened.
• Petition from two (2) years ago included businesses nearby on
University Ave. and they couldn't understand why the bridge would
be closed, as it impacted their businesses.
• Not consensus on Oak Meadow Drive, but opening bridge will lower
traffic on Oak Meadow Drive. Extra traffic is causing deterioration
Page I
ATTACHMENT 2
Roberts Rd Bridge Meeting 2-13-06 Comments & Questions Received
and lots of people park near the barricades, so causing traffic/safety
issues.
• Monroe Ct traffic.
• Any possibility to put "No Parking" signs on barricades in the mean
time?
• Support keeping the bridge closed - for kids walking to school and
park/trail users.
• Agree with lady to keep bridge closed
• Driver training schools use Oak Meadow Drive, as does DMV to test
drivers. Does Town have ability to contact them to stop this activity
(on a private street)?
• I walk down the bridge to get to the park rather than on University due
to traffic and lights. Find there are contractors & trucks in the area so
you have to walk around them & walk out in the street.
• Bottleneck at the bridge - what is difference?
• Will it be striped single lane/one lane bridge but wider with dedicated
bike lanes?
• Will Roberts Road have improved sidewalks?
• Any recent petitions of residents asking their preference?
• Notice since it's been closed there is increased pedestrian activity and
they are inconsiderate to vehicles.
• With new Blossom Hill sidewalk, might divert park of traffic.
• Intersection of Roberts Rd & Oak Meadow has been problem since
before closure. Can it be reviewed now, prior to opening?
• Sidewalks are not Caltrans? So that could be requested separately?
• Would like bridge opened at least during Festival of Lights
• Have staff considered one-way, toward University? So cars from
University won't zip down street?
• Worked well before with stop at either end of bridge.
• I have lived at University & Roberts Rd for 18 years- Sounds like
conflict with Roberts Rd a thoroughfare & as a residential street.
Pleasant with lower traffic. Lots of traffic and pedestrians to access
trail. Town should address how to treat Roberts Road, which is a
traffic issue. Maybe open as a one-way only? If town continues to
approve development on narrow streets, should think about impacts
and use, and what is best.
• How much will it cost to reopen the bridge with weight restriction
bars?
Page 2
Roberts Rd Bridge Meeting 2-13-06 Comments & Questions Received
• Are there ongoing costs to reopen the bridge?
• I also want to keep the bridge closed
• Traffic light at Blossom Hill Rd & Roberts Rd is not working properly
since the new sidewalk installation
• Are you going to take a poll?
• Question re: sidewalk on Blossom Hill Rd
• Ohlone Court access, east side will be more restricted, if Roberts Rd
bridge is closed will be more difficult to access due to school traffic &
changes on Blossom Hill Rd. Is right turn lane (eastbound) wide
enough?
• As a community issue, has found most people polite, but any
action/communication with schools concerning some of these
problems?
• Any study to just take out the bridge rather than replace it?
• When bridge was open, did anyone mention that sidewalks are
needed?
• Can't imagine one more year with Fantasy of Lights
• How far up Roberts Rd is construction activity?
Page 3
Roberts Rd Bridge Meeting 2-13-06 Comments & Questions Received