Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-12-2026 TSC Agenda PacketCity Council Traffic Safety Commission Agenda March 12, 2026 Page 1 of 4 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION March 12, 2026 6:30 P.M. REGULAR MEETING AMENDED AGENDA 03/11/2026 SHERIFF’S REPORT LINKED, COMMENTS ADDED TO TM 632 AND TM 636. 03/12/2026 COMMENTS ADDED TO TM 610 AND TM 631. Public Participation Information In accordance with Saratoga City Council’s Remote Public Participation Policy, members of the public may participate in this meeting in person at the location listed below or via remote attendance using the Zoom information below. In the event remote participation technology is unexpectedly unavailable, the meeting will proceed in person without remote participation. Members of the public can view and participate in the meeting by: 1. Attending the meeting in person in the Linda Callon Conference Room located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070; OR 2. Accessing the meeting through Zoom * Webinar URL https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87056515247 * Webinar ID 870 5651 5247 * Calling 1.669.900.6833 or 1.408.638.0968 Written Communication Comments can be submitted in writing at www.saratoga.ca.us/tsc. Written communications will be provided to the members of the Commission and included in the Agenda Packet and/or in supplemental meeting materials. Public Comment Members of the public may comment on any item for up to three (3) minutes. The amount of time for public comment may be reduced by the Chair. City Council Traffic Safety Commission Agenda March 12, 2026 Page 2 of 4 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA The agenda for this meeting was properly post on March 5, 2026. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Any member of the public may address the committee on matters not on the Agenda. The law generally prohibits the Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Commission may instruct staff accordingly. AGENDA ITEMS 1. Traffic Safety Commission Minutes Recommended Action: Review and approve the minutes for the January 8, 2026, Traffic Safety Commission Regular Meeting. 2. Sheriff’s Report to the Commission December 2025 and January 2026 Citation Summary and Collision Statistics Matrix Item Data Recommended Action: No action required. 3. TSC Matrix 610 – Scully Ave at Viewridge Dr Noticing Comment 02-19-2026 Comment 03-12-2026 Recommended Action: Hear public comment and make a recommendation. 4. TSC Matrix 631 – Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd at Pierce Rd BKF Conceptual Plan Proposal 2026.03.04 HMH Conceptual Plan Proposal 2026.03.05 1 of 2 HMH Conceptual Plan Proposal 2026.03.05 2 of 2 Comment 03-12-2026 Recommended Action: Review the conceptual plan proposals and make a recommendation. 5. TSC Matrix 632 – Montalvo Rd Comment City Council Traffic Safety Commission Agenda March 12, 2026 Page 3 of 4 Recommended Action: Review the item and make a recommendation. 6. TSC Matrix 633 – Quito Rd Recommended Action: Review the item and make a recommendation. 7. TSC Matrix 634 – Allendale Ave Recommended Action: Review the item and make a recommendation. 8. TSC Matrix 635 – Herriman Ave at Saratoga Vista Ct Recommended Action: Review the item and make a recommendation. 9. TSC Matrix 636 – Big Basin Way and 4th St Comment Recommended Action: Review the item and make a recommendation. 10. Announcements ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA, DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET, COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT I, Emma Burkhalter, Associate Engineer for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Traffic Safety Commission was posted and available for public review on March 5, 2026, at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070, and on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Signed this 5th day of March 2026 at Saratoga, California. Emma Burkhalter, Associate Engineer In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the Commission by City staff in connection with this agenda, copies of materials distributed to the Commission concurrently with the posting of the agenda, and materials distributed to the Commission by staff after the posting of the agenda are available on the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us and are available for review in the office of the City Clerk at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California. City Council Traffic Safety Commission Agenda March 12, 2026 Page 4 of 4 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Governor’s Executive Order, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at bavrit@saratoga.ca.us or call 408.868.1216 as soon as possible before the meeting. The City will use its best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA title II] City Council Traffic Safety Commission Minutes January 08, 2026 Page 1 of 3 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES January 08, 2026 CALL TO ORDER - 6:30 PM ROLL CALL PRESENT: Jason Mount (Vice Chair), Dory Albert, Alec Gulesserian, George Mednick ABSENT: Stephen Li (Chair) STAFF PRESENT: Ashley Weiss, Dawn Malla, Emma Burkhalter, John Cherbone REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA The agenda for this meeting was properly post on December 23, 2025. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Any member of the public may address the committee on matters not on the Agenda. The law generally prohibits the Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Commission may instruct staff accordingly. AGENDA ITEMS 1. Traffic Safety Commission Minutes Recommended Action: Review and approve the minutes for the November 13, 2025, Traffic Safety Commission Regular Meeting. GULESSERIAN/ALBERT MOVED TO APPROVE THE NOVEMEBER 13, 2025 MINUTES. MOTION PASSED (4-0-0-1) BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: ALBERT, MEDNICK, MOUNT, GULESSERIAN. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: LI. 2. Sheriff’s Report to the Commission October and November 2025 Citation Summary and Collision Statistics Matrix Item Data Recommended Action: No action required. 3. TSC Matrix 628 – Glen Brae Dr at Cox Ave City Council Traffic Safety Commission Minutes January 08, 2026 Page 2 of 3 Recommended Action: Review the item and make a recommendation. MEDNICK/ALBERT MOVED TO RECONFIGURE THE APPROACH ON GLEN BRAE DRIVE AT COX AVENUE TO PROVIDE AT LEAST 35 FEET OF WIDTH THROUGHOUT AND ELIMINATE THE CROSSWALK ACROSS COX AVENUE. MOTION PASSED (4-0-0-1) BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: ALBERT, MEDNICK, MOUNT, GULESSERIAN. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: LI. 4. TSC Matrix 629 – Scotland Dr btwn Saratoga Ave and Glen Brae Dr Recommended Action: Review the item and make a recommendation. MEDNICK/MOUNT MOVED TO INSTALL THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER’S RECOMMENDED STRIPING ON SCOTLAND DRIVE FROM SARATOGA AVENUE TO GLEN BRAE DRIVE (CENTER- AND EDGELINES WITH 8-FOOT SHOULDERS) FROM GLEN BRAE DR TO SARATOGA AVE, AND FOR STAFF TO BRING ITEM BACK WITH A PROPOSAL FOR A PHYSICAL CALMING ELEMENT (TRAFFIC CIRCLE, BULB-OUTS, ETC.). MOTION PASSED (4-0-0-1) BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: ALBERT, MEDNICK, MOUNT, GULESSERIAN. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: LI. 5. TSC Matrix 630 – Thelma Ave at Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd Recommended Action: Review the item and make a recommendation. MOUNT/MEDNICK MOVED TO HAVE STAFF REMOVE ALL SIGHT HAZARDS FROM SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD MEDIANS. MOTION PASSED (4-0-0-1) BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: ALBERT, MEDNICK, MOUNT, GULESSERIAN. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: LI. GULESSERIAN/MEDNICK MOVED TO REVIEW SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE ROAD FOR POSSIBLE TURN POCKETS/RECEIVING LANES. MOTION PASSED (4-0-0-1) BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: ALBERT, MEDNICK, MOUNT, GULESSERIAN. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: LI. 6. TSC Matrix 631 – Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd at Pierce Rd Recommended Action: Review the item and make a recommendation. ALBERT/MOUNT MOVED TO DEFER ITEM TO NEXT MEETING AND BRING A PROPOSAL FROM AN ENGINEERING FIRM FOR THE DESIGN OF THE SIDEWALK. MOTION PASSED (4-0- 0-1) BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: ALBERT, MEDNICK, MOUNT, GULESSERIAN. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: LI. City Council Traffic Safety Commission Minutes January 08, 2026 Page 3 of 3 7. TSC Work Plan Recommended Action: Discuss and approve workplan for FY26-27 No action taken. Commission will keep workplan from FY25-26 and remove any completed items. 8. Announcements ADJOURNMENT – 10:17 PM Page 1 of 2 #610 Scully Ave at Viewridge Dr Date Received: March 12, 2025 Requesting Resident: Bob Rayl Street name and cross street(s) where the traffic safety concern is occurring: Scully/Viewridge Dr. Description of traffic safety concern: Stop sign at Scully/Viewridge Dr. Many drivers do not stop! Dangerous situation when turning onto Scully from Viewridge Dr. and a driver fails to stop on Scully. What is the reason for a stop sign at this intersection? There is no other stop signs at intersections on Scully, other than one at Kevin Moran Park & North Hampton Dr. Looking forward to a reply from the city. Suggestions to address the traffic safety concern: More Traffic control by Sheriff’s Department. I have made notice of my concern to Sheriff's Department, your commission and city staff over the pass several years, and there has been no evidence to correct this safety issue, other than a neighbor trimming a tree which “blocked” one’s vision of the stop sign. Several year’s ago a Sherrif parked in front of our home to visually observe stop sign violators. TSC Action 5/8/2025: ENG/ALBERT MOVED TO PURSUE THE STOP SIGN REMOVAL AND CAPTURE CURRENT SPEEDS. IF PUSHBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY IS RECEIVED, CANCEL REMOVAL AND BRING ISSUE BACK TO THE TSC FOR DISCUSSION. Page 2 of 2 MOTION PASSED (4-0-0-1) BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: ALBERT, ENG, GULESSERIAN, LI. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: MOUNT. GULESSERIAN/ENG MOVED TO CHECK SPEEDS SIX MONTHS AFTER STOP SIGN REMOVAL, IF IT TAKES PLACE. MOTION PASSED (4-0-0-1) BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: ALBERT, ENG, GULESSERIAN, LI. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: MOUNT. From:Arathi Kumar To:Emma Burkhalter Subject:Viewridge Dr and Scully Avenue Date:Thursday, February 19, 2026 9:06:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hello, I am writing in response to the notice regarding the proposed conversion of the existing all- way stop to a single stop at the intersection of Viewridge Drive and Scully Avenue. I would like to respectfully express my concerns about this change. Scully Avenue is a well-used pedestrian corridor in our neighborhood and serves as a primary walking route to Kevin Morant Park. It is frequently used by families with young children, including people pushing strollers, as well as by teenage cyclists. The current all-way stop plays an important role in slowing traffic and creating predictable vehicle behavior at this intersection, which helps ensure the safety of these vulnerable groups. My concern is that removing the stop control for vehicles coming from Prospect Avenue will result vehicles entering Scully Avenue at higher speeds, creating risk in a location with significant pedestrian activity. In addition, I am a trauma surgeon at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, and from both a professional and personal perspective, I believe this proposed modification introduces avoidable risk without clear safety benefit. Thank you for your time and consideration. Arathi Kumar Saratoga From:Margot Johnson To:Emma Burkhalter Cc:Graham Mostyn Subject:Against Removal of Stop Signs on Scully at Viewridge Date:Thursday, March 12, 2026 12:57:27 PM Attachments:16-02-2026 CITY OF SARATOGA StopSign.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. To the Attention of the Traffic Safety Commissioners of Saratoga: I am writing to strongly object to the removal of stop signs at Scully and Viewridge Drive. It is my understanding that the impetus to remove the stop signs was that some imprudent in the neighborhood honked at a law-abiding person who stopped for the stop sign. I’m sure we can find another way to solve this problem, as opposed to taking out the stop sign which is serving a safety purpose specific to this intersection. While I understand there are safety concerns with a three-way intersection with a minor road joining a larger thoroughfare, there was and are ample reasons for these extra stop signs on Scully Avenue: 1) Many people walk to synagogues & church facilities and cross at that intersection, 2) There is a park down the street and many children walk to the park and need to cross the street at a controlled intersection as many people speed on Scully to get to park events on time with their children at the same time. 3) Students go daily through the intersection from Viewrige to ge to Lynbrook, McAuliffe, Prospect, Miller, and potentially a couple of elementary schools in the same area. They are often on their bikes, and while they should, they often don’t stop at the Viewridge stop sign. 4) People are now accustomed to cars stopping at this intersection, and may get hit in it for that reason, just like people get hit by trains when the schedule changes. Walker and bikers should be able to cross the street safely without playing chicken in fast, often speeding traffic at this intersection. Since they are the most vulnerable at the intersections we need to prioritize their safety. This is consistent with Safe Routes to school initiatives. In addition, I’m also asking Speed Bumps and other safety measure be assessed on Scully and Viewridge in an effort to to calm traffic in the neighborhood. I would be happy to work with the commission, because I think we may need more stop signs rather than fewer. Thanks, Margot Margot Johnson Saratoga, CA 95070 Incorporated October 22, 1956 CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Belal Aftab Kookie Fitzsimmons Chuck Page Tina Walia Yan Zhao January 29, 2026 Dear Resident, The Saratoga Traffic Safety Commission (TSC) was asked to review a traffic safety concern at the intersection of Scully Avenue and Viewridge Drive. The Commission voted to convert the existing all-way stop to a single stop control from the side street, Viewridge Drive, as shown on the attached map. The City’s traffic engineering consultant has determined that removal of the stop control on Scully Avenue is justified based on the intersection’s failure to meet the conditions of any of the all-way stop warrants presented in the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Section 2B, making it an unwarranted all-way stop. You are receiving this notice because the TSC will be providing an opportunity for nearby residents to comment on this proposed conversion at their next regular meeting, Thursday, March 12, 2026, at 6:30 pm. The meeting will be held both in person in the Linda Callon Conference Room at City Hall (13777 Fruitvale Ave) and on Zoom. The meeting agenda and Zoom information will be posted online a week before the meeting at www.saratoga.ca.us/tsc. Following the TSC meeting on March 12th, City staff will proceed to secure any further approvals necessary for the stop sign removal on Scully Avenue. If you have any questions or concerns about this proposed project or the Traffic Safety Commission, please contact Emma Burkhalter at (408) 868-1274 or by email at eburkhalter@saratoga.ca.us. Sincerely, The City of Saratoga Public Works Department Enclosure EXISTING The intersec�on of Scully Avenue and Viewridge Drive is currently an all-way stop. The Traffic Safety Commission has decided to remove the stop signs on Scully Avenue to address the traffic safety concern at this intersec�on. PROPOSED The intersec�on of Scully Avenue and Viewridge Drive a�er the conversion/removal of stop signs on Scully Avenue. ---� 4-----'� _ __._ __ I Prospect Rd ,__I _L L_l ,,.,., ,-·--·-�· ... ·-�·-·--·---·-·-·-·---·- Prospect Rd P ----, -·-�-·�·-·-·-·-·-·-·-Pros�t Rd ro,pect Rd -·-·-·-.. -·-·-·-·-·--·�·-·-·•·--•·--·------·---·--·-· Prosl)e'Ct Rd -----·-·--·-· 19900 I 110 1990 5 I •10 19848 colb)' Ct Colby Ct \ l 19798 \ 19786 \ 19785 I 19828 / \ 19804 \ I 1 19816 _j_.-,r--T I 19861 19345 19831 11.__ .._ __ _,1. __ ..JL--... lit'rioge or 12120 19830 vie."'rtdgt or 197S4 19787 19n4 19n3 19n2 19n5 \ 19799\ 19805 \ -J.--- 1 I I \ \ \oa\."'-,et1 n.. 12150 19S45 19831 198 25 19817 ,.> ....... •" o< -1---l l _ l 1 _,, A 197 11 4 / 1 9 n6 Oa\haYffl Or r-\ \ 19796 \ 19830 I 19826 \ 19814 \ 19808 -r19840 I 12153 12167 19600 R'IOul W•lle11bu•·O; W,.v 19700 12110 12111 --\� t 12122 12130 12129 19686 r 12138 12137 12138 19671 19655 1 1 12142 12141 :-\ 19684 12154 / 19644 1 19668 � l 12150 12155 12164 12167 Page 1 of 2 #631 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd at Pierce Rd Date Received: November 3, 2025 Requesting Resident: Marc Kocir Street name and cross street(s) where the traffic safety concern is occurring: Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road @ Pierce Road Description of traffic safety concern: The west side for pedestrians walking north have no safe path except into the bike lane which also allows vehicles to make right turns up Pierce Road. This is a disaster waiting to happen. The west side passing over Rodeo Creek leaves no room for error for pedestrians and cyclists being sandwiched between cars and the guardrail. Suggestions to address the traffic safety concern: Eliminate the right turn for motorists via the bike lane and provide a safe pedestrian path. Improve the Rodeo Creek Bridge similar to the east side on the street with a safe walkway TSC Action 1/8/2026: ALBERT/MOUNT MOVED TO DEFER ITEM TO NEXT MEETING AND BRING A PROPOSAL FROM AN ENGINEERING FIRM FOR THE DESIGN OF THE SIDEWALK. MOTION PASSED (4-0-0-1) BY THE FOLLOWING Page 2 of 2 VOTE: AYES: ALBERT, MEDNICK, MOUNT, GULESSERIAN. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: LI. BKF No. 26000282-001 March 4, 2026 Emma Burkhalter City of Saratoga Transmitted Via Email: eburkhalter@saratoga.ca.us Subject: Sidewalk Gap Closure – Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd Dear Ms. Burkhalter: BKF Engineers (BKF) is pleased to submit the following proposal to provide civil engineering services to the conceptual design for the City’s Sidewalk Gap Closure initiative within the City of Saratoga along Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road at two distinct locations. The project limits include the Segment A, from Cox Avenue to Brandywine Road (Pierce Road/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road), and Segment B from Reid Lane to the Saratoga Creek Bridge (Reid Lane/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road). The City is seeking a qualified consultant to perform a conceptual study and preliminary design to evaluate the feasibility of closing existing sidewalk gaps at these locations. The work will identify constraints, develop conceptual alternatives, and assess constructability. The resulting conceptual designs and cost estimates will be used to support the City’s grant applications for design and construction funding. Given BKF’s longstanding relationship with the City of Saratoga, please refer to Attachment A and Attachment B of this proposal as an advancement of our knowledge of the site. This can be used as a location map for the forthcoming grant applications. The proposed scope of services is structured to advance concepts to a level that meaningfully informs final design while avoiding unnecessary design detail at this stage. Accordingly, the task breakdown emphasizes constraint identification, constructability awareness, and clearly documented assumptions that establish a strong framework for subsequent design development. I. Scope of Additional Services Task 1 - Project Management and Consensus Building BKF will provide project management services for these additional tasks. BKF’s Project Manager will be responsible for managing the BKF Project team, providing the resources to complete the job, monitoring and updating the Project budget and schedule and communicating regularly with the City. BKF’s Project Manager will keep the City informed by close communications and will attend an estimated 4 progress meetings with the City (including Kickoff Meeting) on an as-needed basis. BKF will attempt to hold all meetings within the allocated budget, but if several meetings are required to finalize the proposed scope of work, BKF will notify the City about additional budgetary needs to do so. BKF will coordinate with the overall Project Team, so that information is disseminated and Project coordination between all parties is seamless. Coordination meetings will be held, if necessary, for comments that need clarification or further information is required. Amir will prepare and maintain the overall project schedule using Microsoft Project. The schedule will be updated and submitted at each Progress Review Meeting and will include key milestones and agency review periods. In collaboration with the City of Saratoga, BKF will develop a Basis of Design Memorandum that defines the design standards, key assumptions, and methodology guiding Conceptual Design. The memorandum will document applicable design criteria, including but not limited to standards from Caltrans, the City of Saratoga, AASHTO, and NACTO. This document will serve as a foundational reference to ensure consistency, transparency, and coordination throughout project development. BKF assumes one round of City review before memorializing the Basis of Design and advancing into Conceptual Design. TASK 1– DELIVERABLES: • Kickoff Meeting Agenda and Minutes • Status Meeting Agenda, Schedule and Minutes • CPM Schedule • Monthly Invoices • Basis of Design Task 2 - Aerial Topographic Survey and Field Reconnaissance After the initial meeting with the City, site investigations and review available documentation, BKF will initiate the development of the conceptual design. Collect and Review Record Data, Studies, and Relevant Project Information - BKF will research, obtain and review available information necessary for the design of the Project. This information includes existing documentation related to the project, the surrounding areas, and environmental resources, including: survey and aerial data, right-of-way maps, relevant traffic data and studies, drainage and hydraulic studies, existing utility mapping and assessments, and pavement condition assessments. This information may be obtained from the City, or other stakeholders. BKF will compile available pavement condition index, right -of-way record maps, title reports, utility occupation drawings, block maps, and third party utility information of record to supplement the aerial topographic base sheets. Aerial Topographic Survey, Site Visits, and Project Base Mapping - BKF will perform a Planning level aerial survey necessary for conceptual design planning. Site visits will be conducted to verify that record information is accurate, and meetings will be held with the City to confirm upcoming projects and developments that may affect the base and considerations for the Project alternative analysis. BKF will develop project base sheets upon receiving the aerial photogrammy of the project site. This information will serve as the background of the project plans and provide a basis of determining required modifications and conforms to existing features. Task 3 - Conceptual Design (35%)- Pierce/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd BKF will develop a comprehensive Concept Design based upon the design memo within Task 1 while incorporating roadway geometrics, cross sections, structural considerations, and feasible design alternatives for overhead joint pole infrastructure. This design will prepare a supplemental rough order of magnitude (ROM) estimate capturing major cost drivers associated with each design component. The Concept Design will be advanced into a Draft Concept Design package for one City review, after which BKF will refine the design and prepare a Final Concept Design suitable for progression into 35% Design. The project assumes the limits shown within Attachment A and will include design considerations for the following project characteristics: • Conceptual Cross Section (for up-to-two Alternatives) o Two Cross Sections ▪ Between Wardell Road and Pierce Road ▪ At Rodeo Creek Crossing (with Structural considerations) • Conceptual Improvement Plan (for up-to-two Alternatives) o Conceptual 40-Scale Intersection Design at Pierce Road/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Brandywine Drive/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road • Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) Estimate (for up-to-two Alternatives) TASK 3– DELIVERABLES: • Conceptual Draft Layout Design – for up to two alternatives • Conceptual Draft Cross Sections – for up to two alternatives • Conceptual Draft ROM Estimate • Response to City Comments • Final Conceptual Design (35%) – for preferred alternative • Final Conceptual ROM Estimate (35%) – for preferred alternative Task 4 - Conceptual Design (35%)- Reid/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd As described within Task 3, BKF will develop a separate comprehensive Concept Design for the limits shown within Attachment B and will include design considerations for the following project characteristics: • Conceptual Cross Section (for up-to-two Alternatives) o Two Cross Sections ▪ Between Reid Lane and Marion Road ▪ Between Marion Lane and Brookwood Lane • Conceptual 40-Scale Improvement Plan (for up-to-two Alternatives) o Conceptual 40-Scale Intersection Design at Marion Road/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, Terrace Court Drive/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, and Brookwood Ln/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road • ROM Estimate (for up-to-two Alternatives) BKF assumes one round of City reviews prior to finalizing the preferred alternative. TASK 4– DELIVERABLES: • Conceptual Draft Layout Design – for up to two alternatives • Conceptual Draft Cross Sections – for up to two alternatives • Conceptual Draft ROM Estimate • Response to City Comments • Final Conceptual Design (35%) – for preferred alternative • Final Conceptual ROM Estimate (35%) – for preferred alternative II. Assumptions • This proposal has been prepared to support conceptual planning and feasibility evaluation only, with the intent of advancing sidewalk gap closure concepts to a level sufficient to inform decision -making, grant competitiveness, and future final design. The scope, task structure, and level of effort reflect this objective and do not include full design development. • The work will be limited to conceptual design, high -level constructability review, and planning-level cost estimating necessary to evaluate feasibility and identify constraints. Final design refinement, detailed engineering calculations, and preparation of construction documents are excluded. • Grant funding preparation, narrative development, application submittals, or coordination with funding agencies are excluded from this scope. Conceptual layouts and planning-level cost estimates will be prepared for City use in support of grant application s under a separate effort, if required. • Private property coordination or external stakeholder engagement (including coordination with adjacent property owners, easement negotiations, or right-of-entry discussions) is excluded and assumed to be performed by the City or under a separate contract. • Utility coordination is excluded. Available utility mapping will be requested through the City and reviewed for planning purposes only. Identification, verification, conflict resolution, and coordination of any required utility relocations will be addressed during final design under a separate agreement. • Photometric analysis and lighting design are excluded. Any lighting concepts shown, if applicable, will be illustrative only and intended solely to support conceptual planning discussions. • Boundary resolution and right-of-way determination are excluded. BKF assumes that right -of-way mapping for the project areas will be provided by the City. If existing mapping is insufficient to clearly establish property limits for conceptual evaluation, BKF will rely on GIS-level data or equivalent publicly available information to establish an assumed public right-of-way solely for the purpose of developing and evaluating conceptual alternatives. • Surveying services, legal boundary determinations, title review, and preparation of right-of-way exhibits suitable for acquisition or final design are excluded from this scope. • BKF assumes that right-of-way acquisition, easement negotiations, property access agreements, and right - of-entry permissions will be obtained by the City or others prior to construction and are not included within this request of BKF’s services. • Reviews by third parties (City departments, private property owners, or agencies) are assumed to be limited to the number of review cycles stated in this scope. • Preparation or processing of permits, including but not limited to encroachment permits, grading permits, utility permits, tree removal permits, or environmental permits, is excluded unless expressly stated. • Geotechnical investigations, pavement design, traffic studies, traffic control plans, environmental documentation, right-of-way engineering, legal descriptions beyond those required for the Final Map, cost estimates, and construction support services are excluded. • Any scope impacts resulting from changes in City standards, third-party requirements, or project limits after authorization of this ASR will require a separate scope amendment. • This proposal assumes an eight (8) month project duration commencing from an assumed Notice to Proceed (NTP) date of May 4, 2026. Work performed substantially beyond the assumed project schedule duration, including delays not attributable to BKF, may require the preparation and authorization of an additional scope and fee amendment. III. SUMMARY The amount of effort required for each individual task outlined above in the Scope of Work is described in the attached “Summary of Project Scope and Effort” for your consideration. BKF proposes to provide the work described herein and the enclosed fee summary for an estimated fee not to exceed $140,838. Thank you for the opportunity to present this proposal. We look forward to assisting you in developing this Project. Please contact me at 925-396-7743 if you have any questions. Respectfully, BKF Engineers Jaggi Bhandal, P.E. Principal/Vice President SARATOGA SIDEWALK GAP CLOSURESARATOGA SIDEWALK GAP CLOSURE 7901 STONERIDGE DRIVE SUITE 360 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 (925) 396-7700 www.bkf.comATTACHMENT A - PIERCE RD & SARATOGA SUNNYVALE RDATTACHMENT A - PIERCE RD & SARATOGA SUNNYVALE RD START OF EXISTING SIDEWALK GAP BEGINNING OF STUDY LIMITS END OF STUDY LIMITS INTERSECTION CORNER DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS STRUCTURE CONCEPT TO CROSS RODEO CREEK INTERSECTION CORNER DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS COX AVE WARDELL RD SA R A T O G A S U N N Y V A L E R D BR A N D Y W I N E D R PIER C E R D RODE O C R E E K BLAUER DR TREE IMPACTS AND PUBLIC R/W TO BE CONSIDERED TREE IMPACTS, TS POLES, MBGR AND DRAINAGE DITCH IMPACTS TO BE CONSIDERED SARATOGA SIDEWALK GAP CLOSURESARATOGA SIDEWALK GAP CLOSURE 7901 STONERIDGE DRIVE SUITE 360 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 (925) 396-7700 www.bkf.comATTACHMENT B - REID LN & SARATOGA SUNNYVALE RDATTACHMENT B - REID LN & SARATOGA SUNNYVALE RD BEGINNING OF STUDY LIMITS END OF STUDY LIMITS MARIO N R D REID L N SA R A T O G A S U N N Y V A L E R D TER R A C E C O U R T BROOK W O O D L N SARATOGA HIGH SCHOOL WILLIAMS AVE WALNUT AVE INTERSECTION CORNER DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS SARA T O G A C R E E K PUBLIC R/W AND DRIVEWAY IMPACTS TO BE CONSIDERED EXISTING CONCRETE RETAINING WALL Date: March 4, 2026 Direct Costs (BKF) Personnel Principal PM EM Sr Eng/ Sur Proj Eng/ Sur Design Eng/Sur 2-Man Survey Total Cost Rate/hr 333.00$ 287.00$ 264.00$ 245.00$ 215.00$ 188.00$ 403.00$ Hours Task 1 - Project Management and Consensus Building 8 23 0 10 8 0 0 49 13,435$ Task 2 - Aerial Topographic Survey and Field Reconnaissance 2 12 0 4 60 12 40 130 36,366$ Task 3 - Conceptual Design - Pierce/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd 8 24 12 10 33 104 0 191 41,817$ Task 4 - Conceptual Design - Reid/Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd 3 16 12 4 36 102 0 173 36,655$ 0 -$ 0 -$ Total Hours 21 75 24 28 137 218 40 543 Subtotal - Direct Costs 6,993$ 21,525$ 6,336$ 6,860$ 29,455$ 40,984$ 16,120$ Reimbursables Printing/Delivery /Computer/Plotter 1.0% of professional fees 1,283$ Mileage/Parking/Tolls 1.0% of professional fees 1,283$ Aerial Topographic Survey 10,000$ 12,565$ 140,838$ Assumptions: Sidewalk Gap Closure - Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd Proposal for Design Services 128,273$ Subtotal - BKF Reimbursables 1. See Scope Document for documented assumptions and exclusions. TOTAL CLASSIFICATION HOURLY RATE PROJECT MANAGEMENT Principal in Charge $333.00 Senior Project Executive $309.00 Project Executive $301.00 Senior Project Manager | Senior Technical Manager $292.00 Project Manager | Technical Manager $287.00 Engineering Manager | Surveying Manager | Planning Manager $264.00 TECHNICAL STAFF Senior Project Engineer | Senior Project Surveyor | Senior Project Planner $245.00 Project Engineer | Project Surveyor | Project Planner $215.00 Design Engineer | Staff Surveyor | Staff Planner $188.00 BIM Specialist I, II, III $188.00 - $215.00 - $245.00 Technician I, II, III, IV, V $179.00 - $190.00 - $208.00 - $224.00 - $242.00 Drafter I, II, III, IV $140.00 - $153.00 - $166.00 - $184.00 Engineering Assistant | Surveying Assistant | Planning Assistant $117.00 FIELD SURVEYING Survey Party Chief $245.00 Instrument Person $210.00 Survey Chainperson $158.00 Utility Locator I, II, III, IV $128.00 - $181.00 - $217.00 - $247.00 Apprentice I, II, III, IV $97.00 - $130.00 - $144.00 - $152.00 CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION Senior Consultant $320.00 Senior Construction Administrator $279.00 Resident Engineer $207.00 Field Engineer I, II, III, IV $188.00 - $215.00 - $245.00 - $263.00 FUNDING & GRANT MANAGEMENT Director of Funding Strategies $229.00 Funding Strategies Manager $210.00 Funding/Research Analyst I, II, III, IV $144.00 - $166.00 - $176.00 - $194.00 PROJECT ADMINISTRATION Project Coordinator $156.00 Senior Project Assistant $134.00 Project Assistant $119.00 Clerical | Administrative Assistant $100.00 Expert witness rates are available upon request. Subject to the terms of a services agreement: •Charges for outside services, equipment, materials, and facilities not furnished directly by BKF Engineers will be billed as reimbursable expenses at cost plus 10%. Such charges may include, but shall not be limited to: printing and reproduction services; shipping, delivery, and courier charges; subconsultant fees and expenses; agency fees; insurance; transportation on public carriers; meals and lodging; and consumable materials. •Allowable mileage will be charged at the prevailing IRS rate per mile. •Monthly invoices are due within 30 days from invoice date. Late Fee will be charged at 1.5% per month on past due accounts. •The rates shown are subject to periodic increases, including January 1st of each year. BKF ENGINEERS BKF ENGINEERS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RATE SCHEDULE 2025-2026 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo; Emma Burkhalter Subject:Online Form Submittal: Traffic Safety Commission Comments Form Date:Thursday, March 12, 2026 8:15:01 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Traffic Safety Commission Comments Form Your Name Coleen Wagner Phone Number Email Address Is this comment about an existing item under review by the Traffic Safety Commission? Yes Traffic Matrix Number (if known) Field not completed. Street Name(s)Pierce Rd and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd Comments I have a video of walking from the intersection of these 2 roads along the west side parallel to the creek. It runs from the intersection to the end of the guardrail where the path opens out. I think it would be helpful to see what it's like to walk that section. I do this walk every day and the distance is so short it's not really much of an inconvenience. I would hate to see the city spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to reengineer the creek for such a short distance. Let me know how I can get a copy of the video to you. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. EXHIBIT “A” CLIENT: City of Saratoga JOB No.: 7367.00 DATE: March 5, 2026 1 OF 6 PROJECT INFORMATION Project: Pierce and Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Improvements Project Address: Saratoga, CA PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The City of Saratoga (City) is seeking a 30% Design Development package to support preliminary pricing and feasibility evaluation for the installation of new sidewalk along the western edge of Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. It is anticipated that the 30% design phase of this project will occur over a duration of three (3) consecutive months. This project focuses on approximately 700 linear feet of improvements centered at the intersection of Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and Pierce Road. The primary objective is to enhance pedestrian connectivity through installation of new sidewalk segments and the removal and replacement of existing curb ramps to meet current accessibility standards. A key component of this project includes the addition of a new pedestrian bridge spanning the existing Valley Water channel, which will require coordination with the project Structural Engineer. Under this scope, HMH will prepare a conceptual-level horizontal site layout, preliminary horizontal utility design, applicable standard details, and a preliminary opinion of probable construction costs (cost estimate). USA markings/underground utility investigation and locating are not part of this current phase and will be conducted as part of subsequent authorizations. To inform the design, HMH will perform a targeted topographic survey intended to identify primary site constraints and critical design considerations; however, detailed engineering solutions and resolution of complex constraints will be deferred to subsequent design phases. The pedestrian bridge will be incorporated into the 30% design package based on a conceptual alternative provided by the Structural Engineer. To maintain focus on feasibility and cost validation, this scope excludes preparation of project specifications and attendance at resident or stakeholder meetings, which will be led and managed by the City. This proposal assumes the City will provide base mapping and reference information, including a record boundary in AutoCAD format (identifying property lines and easements) and available background files depicting existing conditions. Preparation of a record or resolved boundary is not included as part of this proposal. All services will be performed on a standard rate schedule basis. SCOPE OF SERVICES We will perform the following scope of services based on our understanding of the project and experience working in the City of Saratoga. 100 30% Conceptual Design In accordance with a scoping meeting with HMH and the City, the 30% conceptual design will include: • Conceptual-level horizontal site layout, preliminary horizontal utility design • Applicable standard details • Preliminary opinion of probable construction costs (cost estimate). 2 OF 6 101 Coordination and Processing Meetings Attend meetings and provide representation for the project as requested by Client, project administration, scheduling, billing cover letters and subconsultant management. Forty (40) Hours have been allocated as part of this task. 220 Topographic Field Survey Project manager will conduct a field visit to identify site specific characteristics and constraints. Perform up to four (4) days of field topographic surveys to obtain existing pavement, striping, curb, gutter, and concrete flatwork elevations at points of conform, angle points, and grade breaks. Obtain rims of accessible storm drain manholes, inlets, sanitary sewer manholes and visible utilities within the proposed sidewalk area. Additional budget will be required for subsequent submittals. 950 30% Pedestrian Bridge Structural Design See attached proposal, provided by the structural engineer. 3 OF 6 COMPENSATION Services performed on a Charge Rate (CR) basis as designated below shall be invoiced based upon the actual hours expended by each employee classification for the services performed on the project multiplied by the hourly charge rate for that employee classification as shown on the Charge Rate Schedule in effect at the time the services are performed. An initial, estimated budget has been established for each Charge Rate task. Services performed on a Fixed Fee (FF) basis as designated below shall be invoiced based upon the percentage of the services completed during the invoiced billing period. For providing the services included in the Scope of Services, Client shall compensate Consultant as follows: DESCRIPTION FEE 100 30% Conceptual Design 101 Coordination and Processing Meetings 220 Topographic Field Survey 950 30% Pedestrian Bridge Structural Design $ 30,000 12,000 17,000 25,000 FF CR CR FF On July 1 of each calendar year, the above fees and the Charge Rate Schedule will be subject to an automatic increase to cover wage adjustments for field and office personnel and other costs. Billings will be made every month for the services performed within the preceding month and are payable upon receipt. 4 OF 6 DUTIES OF CLIENT This is not intended to represent a complete list but is included for additional clarity. The following activities are the responsibility of Client: • Provide Record Boundary / Resolved Boundary • Provide existing conditions plan line, identifying striping, visible utilities, hardscape, that will be utilized as base for plan preparation • Provide copies of available as-built plans, exhibits, record drawings and data pertinent to the project. • Provide and coordinate services required by other consultants including landscaping plans; traffic engineering and studies; archaeological services; certified arborist services (HMH can provide this service if requested) and geotechnical engineering or geologic services, reports and recommendations. • USA Marking / Underground Utility Locating • Provide construction supervision, inspection, administration, and coordination. • Obtain off-site easements and right-of-way as required to complete the project. EXCLUSIONS This Agreement does not constitute any express or implied warranty that the jurisdictional agencies will approve the applications. This is not intended to represent a complete list but is added only for clarity. The following has been excluded from this scope: • Utility Survey within the vehicular Travel Lanes • Survey of Manhole Inverts • Environmental Impact Reports, Special Studies and Reports (Noise, Traffic, Biotic, etc.) or Phase I or Phase II analysis. • Processing or coordination of U.S. Fish & Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Fish & Game or other Regional, State or Federal Agency permits. • Location of trees by field surveys. (HMH can provide this service if requested) • Uncovering or potholing existing underground facilities. • Off-site construction plans and studies or master plans beyond what is stated in this scope. • Structural, or geotechnical engineering, including plans or calculations for retaining walls, masonry walls, structural excavations and sheeting or shoring. • Private site lighting photo metric calculations or circuitry. • Electrical, telephone, gas, or cable T.V. facilities including joint trenches. • Preparation of Technical Specifications and Bid Packages. • Bidding and Negotiation technical support. • Underground utility locating/tone-out services. • Joint trench system (design by others) will be shown for coordination purposes. • Dry utility design including but not limited to gas, electric, telecommunication, temporary power, permanent power. 5 OF 6 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT Consultant represents that grading design and street design will conform to the normal standard of care for its profession for the accessibility of disabled people related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Consultant’s design will be based upon written information provided by the Project Architect or Client (and updates as they occur) specifying the intended exterior accessible route(s) of travel to all points of ingress and egress at buildings, common use facilities, public sidewalks or transportation stops, and associated facilities per ADA requirements. Consultant’s design, as it relates to ADA, is limited to exterior routes of travel, curb ramps, and accessible parking stalls along with related signing and striping. Client understands that designing the project in accordance with the requirements of the ADA and related codes and laws may be subject to different and possibly contradictory interpretations. In such an event, Client may be asked to provide written acknowledgement of contradictions and interpretations, provide direction, and therefore accept responsibility of such direction. Client recognizes that design for accessibility and ADA compliance may require special expertise and will engage an attorney, architect, or other specialized consultants to provide such expertise to perform review and accessibility design compliance. Client or Client’s Architect shall be responsible for identifying all interior or exterior “areas of rescue assistance” as identified in the ADA, and all communication facilities related to such areas. Client’s contractor shall be responsible for installation of all ADA related improvements including all required signage. The contractor shall take extra care during installation of ADA related improvements to ensure strict adherence to designed grades and to maintain the sloped surfaces of constructed improvements at or below the maximum slopes indicated on the plans. CHANGES IN SERVICES Client may request changes in scope of or character of service, either decreasing or increasing the amount of Consultant’s services. In the event that additional services not included in the Scope of Services are required, or if the Client requests changes and revisions after Consultant has performed the services in the Scope of Services, Client agrees to pay for all such additional services and expenses incurred, on a charge rate basis in accordance with Consultant’s Charge Rate Schedule. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Client shall reimburse Consultant for reimbursable expenses excluded from the Basic Services at cost plus twenty percent (20%) for processing. Such reimbursable expenses may include reproduction of plans and documents, overnight mail, delivery and courier services. 6 OF 6 APPROVED & ACCEPTED ____________________________________________ Client: City of Saratoga _________________________________________ Consultant: HMH Engineers ____________________________________________ Printed Name Zeferino Jimenez, P.E. _________________________________________ Printed Name ____________________________________________ Title Vince President, Land Development Manager _________________________________________ Title ____________________________________________ Date March 5, 2026 _________________________________________ Date Professional & Office Hourly Rate Principal $290 Senior Land Development Manager - Planning $282 Senior Land Development Manager $272 Senior Civil Engineering or Land Surveying or Landscape Architect Manager $264 Land Development Manager $234 Civil Engineering, Land Surveying or Landscape Architect Manager $230 Senior Planner $240 Senior Civil Engineer, Land Surveyor, or Landscape Architect $218 Engineering Design Specialist $208 Design Specialist $198 Project Planner $218 Project Civil Engineer, Land Surveyor, or Landscape Architect $198 Project Arborist $200 Senior Engineer, Surveyor, or Landscape Designer $200 Engineer, Planner, Surveyor, or Landscape Designer $188 Assistant Engineer, Surveyor, Planner, or Landscape Designer $166 Junior Engineer, Surveyor, Planner, or Landscape Designer $156 Senior Technician $168 Project Technician $154 Technician $144 Assistant Technician $134 Junior Technician $110 Intern $102 Project Support Staff $102 Field Services Hourly Rate 2-Person Field Crew $314 3-Person Field Crew $410 1-Person Field Crew $218 Field Survey Manager $234 Senior Field Engineer $208 Field Engineer $180 Printing, Reproductions & Materials at Cost, Plus 20% Transportation at Cost, including mileage based upon IRS rates Other Outside Services at Cost, Plus 20% Rates are subject to Adjustment July 1, 2026 EXHIBIT “A” CLIENT: City of Saratoga JOB No.: 7367.01 DATE: March 5, 2026 1 OF 6 PROJECT INFORMATION Project: (Brookwood to Reid) Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Improvements Project Address: Saratoga, CA PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The City of Saratoga (City) is seeking a 30% Design Development package to support preliminary pricing and feasibility evaluation for the installation of new sidewalk along the western edge of Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. It is anticipated that the 30% design phase of this project will occur over a duration of three (3) consecutive months. This project includes approximately 1,700 linear feet of new sidewalk construction extending from Brookwood Lane to Reid Lane. The primary objective is to establish continuous pedestrian connectivity along the corridor through construction of new sidewalk and the removal and replacement of existing curb ramps to meet current accessibility standards. Under this scope, HMH will prepare a conceptual-level horizontal site layout, preliminary horizontal utility design, applicable standard details, and a preliminary opinion of probable construction costs (cost estimate). USA markings/underground utility investigation and locating are not part of this current phase and will be conducted as part of subsequent authorizations. To inform the design, HMH will perform a targeted topographic survey intended to identify primary site constraints and critical design considerations; however, detailed engineering solutions and resolution of complex constraints will be deferred to subsequent design phases. To maintain focus on feasibility and cost validation, this scope excludes preparation of project specifications and attendance at resident or stakeholder meetings, which will be led and managed by the City. This proposal assumes the City will provide base mapping and reference information, including a record boundary in AutoCAD format (identifying property lines and easements) and available background files depicting existing conditions. Preparation of a record or resolved boundary is not included as part of this proposal. All services will be performed on a standard rate schedule basis. SCOPE OF SERVICES We will perform the following scope of services based on our understanding of the project and experience working in the City of Saratoga. 100 30% Conceptual In accordance with a scoping meeting with HMH and the City, the 30% conceptual design will include: • Conceptual-level horizontal site layout, preliminary horizontal utility design • Applicable standard details • Preliminary opinion of probable construction costs (cost estimate). 2 OF 6 101 Coordination and Processing Meetings Attend meetings and provide representation for the project as requested by Client, project administration, scheduling, billing cover letters and subconsultant management. Sixty (60) Hours have been allocated as part of this task. 220 Topographic Field Survey Project manager will conduct a field visit to identify site specific characteristics and constraints. Perform up to eight (8) days of field topographic surveys to obtain existing pavement, striping, curb, gutter, and concrete flatwork elevations at points of conform, angle points, and grade breaks. Obtain rims of accessible storm drain manholes, inlets, sanitary sewer manholes and visible utilities within the proposed sidewalk area. Additional budget will be required for subsequent submittals. 3 OF 6 COMPENSATION Services performed on a Charge Rate (CR) basis as designated below shall be invoiced based upon the actual hours expended by each employee classification for the services performed on the project multiplied by the hourly charge rate for that employee classification as shown on the Charge Rate Schedule in effect at the time the services are performed. An initial, estimated budget has been established for each Charge Rate task. Services performed on a Fixed Fee (FF) basis as designated below shall be invoiced based upon the percentage of the services completed during the invoiced billing period. For providing the services included in the Scope of Services, Client shall compensate Consultant as follows: DESCRIPTION FEE 100 30% Conceptual 101 Coordination and Processing Meetings 220 Topographic Field Survey $ 60,000 18,000 31,000 FF CR CR On July 1 of each calendar year, the above fees and the Charge Rate Schedule will be subject to an automatic increase to cover wage adjustments for field and office personnel and other costs. Billings will be made every month for the services performed within the preceding month and are payable upon receipt. 4 OF 6 DUTIES OF CLIENT This is not intended to represent a complete list but is included for additional clarity. The following activities are the responsibility of Client: • Provide Record Boundary / Resolved Boundary • Provide existing conditions plan line, identifying striping, visible utilities, hardscape, that will be utilized as base for plan preparation • Provide copies of available as-built plans, exhibits, record drawings and data pertinent to the project. • Provide and coordinate services required by other consultants including landscaping plans; traffic engineering and studies; archaeological services; certified arborist services (HMH can provide this service if requested) and geotechnical engineering or geologic services, reports and recommendations. • USA Marking / Underground Utility Locating • Provide construction supervision, inspection, administration, and coordination. • Obtain off-site easements and right-of-way as required to complete the project. EXCLUSIONS This Agreement does not constitute any express or implied warranty that the jurisdictional agencies will approve the applications. This is not intended to represent a complete list but is added only for clarity. The following has been excluded from this scope: • Utility Survey within the vehicular Travel Lanes • Survey of Manhole Inverts • Environmental Impact Reports, Special Studies and Reports (Noise, Traffic, Biotic, etc.) or Phase I or Phase II analysis. • Processing or coordination of U.S. Fish & Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Fish & Game or other Regional, State or Federal Agency permits. • Location of trees by field surveys. (HMH can provide this service if requested) • Uncovering or potholing existing underground facilities. • Off-site construction plans and studies or master plans beyond what is stated in this scope. • Structural, or geotechnical engineering, including plans or calculations for retaining walls, masonry walls, structural excavations and sheeting or shoring. • Private site lighting photo metric calculations or circuitry. • Electrical, telephone, gas, or cable T.V. facilities including joint trenches. • Preparation of Technical Specifications and Bid Packages. • Bidding and Negotiation technical support. • Underground utility locating/tone-out services. • Joint trench system (design by others) will be shown for coordination purposes. • Dry utility design including but not limited to gas, electric, telecommunication, temporary power, permanent power. 5 OF 6 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT Consultant represents that grading design and street design will conform to the normal standard of care for its profession for the accessibility of disabled people related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Consultant’s design will be based upon written information provided by the Project Architect or Client (and updates as they occur) specifying the intended exterior accessible route(s) of travel to all points of ingress and egress at buildings, common use facilities, public sidewalks or transportation stops, and associated facilities per ADA requirements. Consultant’s design, as it relates to ADA, is limited to exterior routes of travel, curb ramps, and accessible parking stalls along with related signing and striping. Client understands that designing the project in accordance with the requirements of the ADA and related codes and laws may be subject to different and possibly contradictory interpretations. In such an event, Client may be asked to provide written acknowledgement of contradictions and interpretations, provide direction, and therefore accept responsibility of such direction. Client recognizes that design for accessibility and ADA compliance may require special expertise and will engage an attorney, architect, or other specialized consultants to provide such expertise to perform review and accessibility design compliance. Client or Client’s Architect shall be responsible for identifying all interior or exterior “areas of rescue assistance” as identified in the ADA, and all communication facilities related to such areas. Client’s contractor shall be responsible for installation of all ADA related improvements including all required signage. The contractor shall take extra care during installation of ADA related improvements to ensure strict adherence to designed grades and to maintain the sloped surfaces of constructed improvements at or below the maximum slopes indicated on the plans. CHANGES IN SERVICES Client may request changes in scope of or character of service, either decreasing or increasing the amount of Consultant’s services. In the event that additional services not included in the Scope of Services are required, or if the Client requests changes and revisions after Consultant has performed the services in the Scope of Services, Client agrees to pay for all such additional services and expenses incurred, on a charge rate basis in accordance with Consultant’s Charge Rate Schedule. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Client shall reimburse Consultant for reimbursable expenses excluded from the Basic Services at cost plus twenty percent (20%) for processing. Such reimbursable expenses may include reproduction of plans and documents, overnight mail, delivery and courier services. 6 OF 6 APPROVED & ACCEPTED ____________________________________________ Client: City of Saratoga _________________________________________ Consultant: HMH ____________________________________________ Printed Name Zeferino Jimenez, P.E. _________________________________________ Printed Name ____________________________________________ Title Vince President, Land Development Manager _________________________________________ Title ____________________________________________ Date March 5, 2026 _________________________________________ Date Professional & Office Hourly Rate Principal $290 Senior Land Development Manager - Planning $282 Senior Land Development Manager $272 Senior Civil Engineering or Land Surveying or Landscape Architect Manager $264 Land Development Manager $234 Civil Engineering, Land Surveying or Landscape Architect Manager $230 Senior Planner $240 Senior Civil Engineer, Land Surveyor, or Landscape Architect $218 Engineering Design Specialist $208 Design Specialist $198 Project Planner $218 Project Civil Engineer, Land Surveyor, or Landscape Architect $198 Project Arborist $200 Senior Engineer, Surveyor, or Landscape Designer $200 Engineer, Planner, Surveyor, or Landscape Designer $188 Assistant Engineer, Surveyor, Planner, or Landscape Designer $166 Junior Engineer, Surveyor, Planner, or Landscape Designer $156 Senior Technician $168 Project Technician $154 Technician $144 Assistant Technician $134 Junior Technician $110 Intern $102 Project Support Staff $102 Field Services Hourly Rate 2-Person Field Crew $314 3-Person Field Crew $410 1-Person Field Crew $218 Field Survey Manager $234 Senior Field Engineer $208 Field Engineer $180 Printing, Reproductions & Materials at Cost, Plus 20% Transportation at Cost, including mileage based upon IRS rates Other Outside Services at Cost, Plus 20% Rates are subject to Adjustment July 1, 2026 Page 1 of 2 #632 Montalvo Rd Date Received: July 17, 2025 Requesting Resident: Anthony Ajlouny Street name and cross street(s) where the traffic safety concern is occurring: 14821 Montalvo road Saratoga Ca. 95070 Description of traffic safety concern: The home is directly on Montalvo Rd, the house is on a sharp corner with multiple vehicles (4-5) parked on a daily basis. Villa Montalvo is an extremely high populated place for pedestrians to walk, and on multiple occasions I myself have witnessed cars flying around the corner coming only inches away from hitting a pedestrian. There is no shoulder available to walk on because of the vehicles parked there. My family no longer walks on that side of the street because of the major safety concerns. Suggestions to address the traffic safety concern: Because of the blind bend on the location of property 14821 Montalvo Rd, my suggestion to avoid a potential major injury is there should be a no parking zone on that portion of the street. I have also reached out to the local Fire Department & to the Sheriffs office in regards to this issue, they are well aware of the problem and informed me that this definitely a Saratoga City issue. They also agreed that it's a major safety concern. Page 2 of 2 Date Received: August 5, 2025 Requesting Resident: Jitendra Maheshwari Street name and cross street(s) where the traffic safety concern is occurring: Montalvo Road at the curve before Hill Avenue Description of traffic safety concern: There is a bike lane drawn at the curve when entering from Saratoga Los Gatos road, where visibility is limited and pedestrians and 2-way car traffic are continuously flowing. Many cars are parking regularly all day, evening, and overnight inside these bike lanes making pedestrians walk the road where cars cannot see well. It is very dangerous and it seems like the cars should not be parked there. Please investigate and clear it. Suggestions to address the traffic safety concern: Need to disallow cars from parking inside the bike lane From:Ritu Rama To:Emma Burkhalter; Anil Rama, MD Subject:Re: Traffic Safety Concern - TM 632 To Be Reviewed March 12, 2026 Date:Thursday, March 5, 2026 8:07:40 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Emma, Thank you again for your earlier message regarding the Traffic Safety Commission agenda item for March 12 concerning parking near my home at Montalvo Road. After sending my earlier email, I was able to obtain copies of the traffic safety requests that appear to have prompted the item. I wanted to provide a few additional clarifications that may be helpful for staff and the Commission as they review the request. In reviewing the submitted materials, part of the concern references vehicles parking “inside the bike lane.” My understanding is that the white edge lines along this portion of Montalvo Road were installed as traffic calming lane delineation, not as designated bicycle lanes. If that is correct, it may be helpful for the Commission to clarify the purpose of those markings when evaluating the request. I also wanted to note that the description stating that four to five vehicles are parked daily along this stretch of roadway does not reflect typical conditions. In practice, there are generally two vehicles parked overnight, and during the daytime there are typically one or two vehicles parked along the frontage of our home. One of those vehicles is often associated with a care provider who assists an elderly resident across the street, and that vehicle parks on our side of the road because the lane delineation on our side provides a wider area for vehicles to safely pull over. The opposite side of the street has a narrower shoulder, so cars naturally tend to park along our side where there is sufficient space within the white lane area. Because our property has a longer frontage along the curve and the roadway geometry allows vehicles to fit more comfortably within the marked lane area, cars may appear more concentrated along this section even though the overall number of vehicles is relatively small and consistent with typical residential street parking. Several years ago, I brought safety concerns regarding this same section of Montalvo Road to the Traffic Safety Commission after a tragic incident in which one of our family dogs was struck and killed by a vehicle traveling at high speed just beyond the blind corner near our home. That experience prompted me to request traffic calming measures for this portion of the roadway. Following that request, the Commission conducted traffic speed measurements on two separate occasions, once during the COVID shutdown period and again after normal traffic patterns resumed. After that process, the City installed the white edge lines along this stretch of road to improve lane awareness and help calm traffic. From our experience living at this location, the primary safety concern on this stretch of Montalvo Road has consistently been vehicle speed, not residential parking. In practice, vehicles parked along the roadway often encourage drivers to slow down as they approach the curve and blind corner near our home. More recently, traffic conditions around the Montalvo area have also been affected by the temporary closure of the main entrance, which has caused additional vehicles to circulate through surrounding residential streets while looking for alternate routes. I wanted to provide this additional context so that the Commission has a clearer understanding of the roadway conditions and the history of safety discussions for this location. I look forward to reviewing any materials that will be presented to the Commission and to participating in the discussion on March 12. Thank you again. Sincerely, Ritu Rama On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 7:41 PM Ritu Rama <ritu.rama@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Emma, Thank you for reaching out and for notifying me that the Traffic Safety Commission will be reviewing a request related to parking in front of my home at Montalvo Road during the March 12 meeting. This is the first time I have been made aware of any concern regarding parking at this location, so I would appreciate a bit more context before the Commission considers the request. Could you please let me know who submitted the request and what specific safety concerns were cited in support of it? Because the request directly affects the frontage of my home, I would also appreciate clarification on how this item was placed on the agenda and whether affected property owners are typically contacted prior to the matter being scheduled. While I understand that meeting agendas are posted in accordance with the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act, this is the first notice I have received regarding any concern about parking in front of our property. From a practical standpoint, street parking is necessary for our household. Our property currently has only one driveway, and due to the roadway configuration there is not a break in the double yellow line that would allow additional driveway access. As a result, the ability to park along the frontage of our home is an important and reasonable use of the public right of way for both our family and visitors. More broadly, the safety concerns on this stretch of Montalvo Road relate primarily to vehicle speed and unsafe driving behavior on a narrow residential roadway rather than residential parking. Several years ago, I brought these concerns to the Traffic Safety Commission after a tragic incident in which one of our family dogs was struck and killed by a vehicle traveling at high speed just beyond the blind corner near our home. That experience prompted me to request traffic calming measures for this portion of the road. Following that request, the Commission conducted a traffic safety evaluation and measured vehicle speeds on two separate occasions, once during the COVID shutdown period and again after normal traffic patterns resumed. As part of that process, the City ultimately installed white edge lines along the roadway from the start of our street past our home in an effort to improve lane awareness and safety. At the time, we had also requested additional traffic calming measures such as speed humps, though those measures were not implemented. More recently, traffic conditions around the Montalvo area have become more challenging due to the temporary closure of the main entrance, which has caused additional vehicles to circulate through surrounding residential streets while looking for alternate routes. In practice, vehicles parked along the roadway tend to have a natural traffic-calming effect by encouraging drivers to slow down when approaching the curve and blind corner near our property. Removing parking in front of our home would not address the underlying safety issue and may actually encourage higher vehicle speeds along this residential stretch. My understanding is that under California Vehicle Code §22507, cities may regulate parking by ordinance or resolution, but such restrictions should be supported by legitimate traffic engineering or safety considerations and applied in a reasonable and consistent manner. Traffic control changes are also typically evaluated using engineering standards such as the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which emphasize the importance of engineering judgment and objective safety analysis when implementing roadway restrictions. Because similar roadway conditions and blind corners exist in other areas of Montalvo Road and throughout Saratoga while still allowing residential parking, it would be helpful to understand what specific conditions at this location prompted the request. To help prepare for the discussion, could you please share any materials that will be presented to the Commission, including: • The original request or complaint submitted to the City • Any staff report or recommendation related to the agenda item • Any traffic engineering analysis, collision data, or safety evaluation supporting the request • Confirmation of whether staff is recommending this restriction or whether the Commission is simply reviewing a citizen request • Any prior traffic speed studies or evaluations that were conducted for this section of Montalvo Road Our property happens to have a longer stretch of frontage due to the shape of the lot, but we park well within the existing white edge lines and in a manner consistent with typical residential street use. I will do my best to adjust my schedule so that I can attend the March 12 meeting, as this matter directly affects our home. In the meantime, I would appreciate receiving the relevant materials so that I can review them and provide informed comments to the Commission. Thank you again for reaching out, and I look forward to working constructively with the City to ensure that safety concerns on Montalvo Road are addressed appropriately while preserving reasonable residential access and parking. Sincerely, Ritu Rama On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 6:35 PM Emma Burkhalter <eburkhalter@saratoga.ca.us> wrote: Hi Ritu, I hope you and your family are doing well. I wanted to reach out because the Traffic Safety Commission was asked to review a request for No Parking in front of your home at Montalvo Road. It’s scheduled for the Commission’s regular meeting next week on March 12th. I apologize for the short notice. It’s item #5 on the attached agenda. If you are unable to attend either in-person or virtually, you are welcome to submit a written comment which I will send to the Commission and attach to the agenda. You can also submit a written comment even if you plan to be there. Respectfully, Emma Burkhalter, PE (she/her) Associate Civil Engineer Public Works Department | City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue | Saratoga, CA | 95070 Ph: (408) 868-1274 | eburkhalter@saratoga.ca.us Page 1 of 1 #633 Quito Road Date Received: November 20, 2025 Requesting Resident: Daniel Bao Street name and cross street(s) where the traffic safety concern is occurring: Quito Road. With cross streets Cox Ave, Baylor Ave, McCoy Ave, Westmont Ave, Yorkton Way, Bucknall Rd Description of traffic safety concern: There are ongoing safety issues with left turns along Quito Road, especially when turning left from Baylor Avenue. Visibility of oncoming traffic is poor, the pedestrian crossing is long, and the area is very dark at night. This has already led to a friend of mine being struck by a vehicle, and I’ve personally had near-misses when crossing to get to school. Pedestrians walking at night are at even greater risk due to limited lighting and low driver visibility. Suggestions to address the traffic safety concern: I recommend installing three temporary roundabouts along Quito Road to slow traffic and make left turns safer without blocking lanes. In addition, pedestrian-activated crossing lights should be added so people can safely cross by pressing a button. A clearly marked crosswalk along Quito is also needed to provide a safe route for pedestrians accessing bus stops. These improvements would significantly enhance safety and reduce the risk of further accidents. Page 1 of 1 #634 Allendale Ave Date Received: November 29, 2025 Requesting Resident: Sujata Rao Street name and cross street(s) where the traffic safety concern is occurring: The concern is on allendale ave right opposite the portable classrooms were there is a bend on allendale ave Description of traffic safety concern: This is in refernce to an inicident that occured infront of the portable classrooms (of west valley) facing allendale ave right at the slight bend on Allendale. Between 7.20PM -8.30PM on November 29,2025 we heard a loud bang and some broken glass noise we did not make much of it as there was no further noise. This road is heavily used to connect to campbell and los gatos areas. It was later at around 9.15 pm that we realized that a speeding vehicle plouged into the juniper bush in our front yard near the entrance of our driveway and crossed the driveway to knock out our mailbox on the pavement. This incident was a hit and run. Our mailbox was sitting on a post that was extremely sturdy. Suggestions to address the traffic safety concern: Please put speed breakers right at the bend to cut traffic speed. Since there is no lighting on this busy road the bend is misjudged. The street is used heavily to commute to the middle school and west valley college. Reflective signs or posts will not suffice as these posts have been taken down by speeding vehicles. this is really concerning for residents who live on allendale ave. Todays incident could have been a lot worse if anyone was around near the road . Please give this some priority as this road is used by commuters to Redwood middle school and west valley colleges. Thank you Concerned resident on AllendaleAve. Page 1 of 1 #635 Herriman Ave at Saratoga Vista Date Received: December 9, 2025 Requesting Resident: Luci Lagemann Street name and cross street(s) where the traffic safety concern is occurring: CAMINO RICO, Herriman Ave, Saratoga Vista Court, Saratoga Vista Ave. Description of traffic safety concern: I live on a through fair Street where parents and students regularly speed to school in the morning between 8 AM and 845 m. In the past, I’ve contacted the high school but I’ve never received any help or resolution so now I’m going to make a formal complaint. This is a very dangerous situation because there are also high school students that are walking and riding their bikes to school. Suggestions to address the traffic safety concern: I would like to recommend to have either traffic patrol, speed bumps, and or some sort of electronic sign that shows how fast parents and students are driving to school and then home again. Page 1 of 1 #636 Big Basin Way Date Received: January 5, 2026 Requesting Resident: Juno Suzuki Street name and cross street(s) where the traffic safety concern is occurring: Big basin way and 4th st. intersection Description of traffic safety concern: I was about to hit by a car many times, and I witnessed others were about to be hit too. Most cars only see cars, not pedestrians. This 4 way stops intersection is very dangerous. I would request for reviews and installation of traffic lights. Not like the one by Saratoga library but a real one, because some drivers ignore when pedestrians press the button to lighten the crosswalk. Suggestions to address the traffic safety concern: From:noreply@civicplus.com To:Britt Avrit; Leslie Arroyo; Emma Burkhalter Subject:Online Form Submittal: Traffic Safety Commission Comments Form Date:Friday, March 6, 2026 7:49:08 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Traffic Safety Commission Comments Form Your Name Marilyn Marchetti Phone Number Email Address Is this comment about an existing item under review by the Traffic Safety Commission? Yes Traffic Matrix Number (if known) 636 Street Name(s)4th Street Comments A resident has suggested a traffic light on 4th street, and this is not a good idea! 1.) It is a Highway and involves Cal Trans 2.) People would take side streets to avoid the light, creating unsafe conditions around the school and residents homes. I suggest better signage and rubber post in the street as on 6th street. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.