1. FOOTHILL ELEMENTARY TRAFFIC PROBLEM SOLVING May 19, 2009 6:30 p.m.

2. Context  The traffic safety issue at Foothill Elementary has been a concern for a number of years.  In May 2007, the Foothill design advisory team identified it as the top safety priority for the school and desired to use the opportunity of the Bond project to address it.  The project architect developed a design for a traffic loop and parking and the design was shared at two public meetings in the fall of 2007. The design was modified to reflect feedback from those meetings.  The traffic loop design was eliminated from the final base bid of the project to bring it into budget.

3. Context (continued)  In March 2009, the Bond project manager identified surplus contingency funds which can be used toward the project.  In April, BVSD had a traffic study conducted. Results of that study will be shared a little later.  Shared the design plan with the community and requested feedback.  That feedback has been used to modify the original design to create the alternatives presented tonight.

4. What we heard – general themes  There may be other, better solutions to the safety issue (construction and non-construction)  The process is flawed  Concern over loss of green space  Concern over environmental impact from driving and asphalt  The money should be used for other improvements  The congestion is a result of school closures and too large schools

5. What we heard – general themes  The pick up/drop off area is needed to improve safety  Take advantage of the opportunity (available funds, contractor onsite, disturbed area) to address the problem now  It is not realistic for some families to use alternative transportation everyday  The trade off of green space is worth it  Additional parking will not encourage more driving

6. Decision Making  The input collected tonight will be compiled into a document which will be posted on the website.  We will continue to collect input through the website through the end of day Monday, May 25.  This input will be used to inform the final decision which will be made by senior Education Center administrative staff.

7. Collaborative Problem Solving

8.  Develop a list of interests/needs  Translate them into criteria  Review/modify alternative to meet as many criteria as possible

9.  Positions – favorite solution or outcome for me (maybe not for you)  Interests – reasons behind a solution; underlying need; the why  Criteria – an interest worded as an action; a list of things

10. Interests/Criteria  Ensure the safety of the children  Provide for increased traffic mobility  Maintain green space for recreation and physical education  Encourage other modes of access to school  Provide for additional parking  Avoid detrimental environmental impacts  Meet all existing rules and regulations

11. Interests/Criteria (continued)  Be timely and efficient; take advantage of  Available funding  Currently disturbed area  Contractor already onsite  Plan for the future as well as for the present  Maintain neighborhood quality and property value  Meet requirements of Bond  Encourage health and outdoor physical activity  Balance the cost of resources spent/lost ($,land) with magnitude of the problem (duration and frequency)

12.  Address needs of mobility of disabled  Sustainability  Responsible and appropriate use of tax dollars  Increase visibility between drop off and the building  Reduce need for cars to back up  Provide safer bike flow  Improve access from north side of Broadway  Respond to clearly articulated safety issue  Provide adequate parking for staff within a reasonable distance Interests/Criteria (continued)

13. Small Group Exercise

14. Strategies true for all options  Develop traffic safety work group to investigate implementing other strategies such as the non- engineering strategies described in Safe Routes to Schools and continuing to encourage alternative access to school through the Fox Tracks program and additional bike parking

15. The existing situation Findings of the traffic study and observations  125-130 vehicles drop off in a.m. and 75-80 vehicles pick up in p.m.  Most vehicles (~80%), travel from Broadway west along Hawthorn towards 9 th St.  Vehicles make u-turns on Hawthorn and return to Broadway; the remainder continued towards 9 th Street  Room for 12 vehicles to queue on north side of Hawthorn for drop-off and pick up  Illegally parked vehicles in the drop off area restrict traffic flow  Vehicles park illegally along the south side of Hawthorn  Many vehicles used the staff parking lot for drop-off  The two types of drop off, “hug and go” and the desire to escort the child into the school conflict in the same area  Six busses queue along the north side of Hawthorn and one on 9th St.  Current predictions are for a 5% growth in student population

16. Option 1: non-construction Restore contractor staging to grass Maintain current on-street drop- off/pick-up Grass area = approx. 62,000 sf Main play field = 47,125 sf No additional construction cost

17. Option 2: traffic loop + parking Convert contractor staging to traffic loop + parking Adds 26 parking spaces Provides space for 15 to 20 vehicles in loop for “hug-n-go” Could provide space along Hawthorn to park and escort students Separates drop-off/pick up from vehicle traffic Field/grass = approx. 46,000 sf Main play field = 38,425 sf $ 235,000

18. Option 3: Traffic loop, no parking Convert contractor staging to traffic loop Provides space for 15 to 20 vehicles in loop for “hug-n-go” Could provide space along north side of Hawthorn to park and escort students Separates drop- off/pick-up from vehicle traffic Field/grass = approx. 51,000 sf Main play field = 41,325 sf $ 175,000

19. Option 4: Curb pull out Convert contractor staging to curb pull out Provides single lane for 10 to 12 vehicles to drop-off/pick-up Does not separate drop-off/pick-up from vehicle traffic Field/grass = approx. 58,000 sf Main play field = 44,225 sf $ 70,000