BOARD MEETING MINUTES January 8, 2018

Call to Order The Study Session of the Shoreline Board of Directors was called to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Darlene Sherrick Room (D105) at the Shoreline Center by President David Wilson on January 8, 2018.

Roll Call Present: David Wilson, President; Mike Jacobs, Vice President; Heather Fralick, Member; Dick Nicholson, Member; Dick Potter, Member, and Luel Mitiku, Shorewood Student Representative.

Middle School Educational Specifications, Preliminary Design Update, and Inclusive Restroom Design Considerations/Concepts Presenters: Marla S. Miller, Deputy Superintendent Dan Stevens, Manager of Capital Projects (Kellogg Project Manager) Michael Romero, Capital Projects Project Manager (Einstein Project Manager) Rebecca Baibak, Integrus Architects (Einstein Architect Team) Rene Berndt, Mahlum Architects (Kellogg Architect Team Stacey Crumbaker, Mahlum Architects (Inclusive Restroom Design) David Mount, Mahlum Architects (Kellogg Architect Team) Karen Wood, Mahlum Architects (Kellogg Architect Team) Sara Wilder, Integrus Architects (Einstein Architect Team) Ms. Miller announced that the presenters were not looking for any decisions to be made at this meeting. Rather, this was an opportunity to share information so the Board could think about what was being presented and also to provide feedback, which will inform and change what comes back the next time. At the study session on February 12, the presenters will talk about the specifics of the designs.

Ms. Baibak reviewed the various phases of the project schedule for the middle schools. • Pre-Design – educational specifications and conceptual design (August through December 2017) • Schematic Design – site concepts and program relationships (January through March/early April 2018) • Design Development – building systems and equipment (April through July 2018) • Construction Documents – details (August 2018 through January 2019) • Construction Phases I (building) and II (site) – February 2019 through November 2020 (occupancy beginning in summer 2020)

Integrus and Mahlum Architects have been working collaboratively with both the Einstein and Kellogg communities in order to listen, learn and discover all of the components in determining the best fit for Shoreline middle schools. This process has included journey mapping, virtual tours, project tours, organizing adjacencies, spectrum exercises and site explorations, all of which came together for the development of the guiding principles. These principles include: • Active learning environments that inspire the emerging adolescent with their varying needs from 6th through 8th grade, through adaptable environments that embrace evolutions in education, respond to growth in the community and highlight student work. • Variety of spaces that support varying learning styles, in a variety of group sizes and reinforce personalized learning. • Dynamic environment that provides a dynamic open space that allows diverse groups to come together, which is well zoned for after-hours community use and encourages creativity with space to DO things. Study Session Minutes – January 8, 2018

• Safety and security – provide safe and secure spaces for students and staff that are welcoming to the community. • Create community in an environment that honors community values and promotes community access through a place that is welcoming and supports enjoyment and reflection. • Embrace indoor/outdoor connections that engage the whole site as a learning tool, reinforcing our role as global citizens. • Equity – design to foster pride and diversity as a family within the school. Create pride in a place that is welcoming to those with diverse abilities. • Environmentally responsible campus – embrace the building as a teaching tool in how to be good stewards of our environment, while creating global connections.

These guiding principles are invaluable in making decisions and ensuring that all options are being considered throughout the process. Ms. Miller added that this ed spec process involves developing a common ed spec for both middle schools; however, the next phase of design will be responsive and specific to each site.

Site specific meetings began in September 2017 at both Einstein and Kellogg and included staff in the discipline areas of administration, art, counseling, CTE/STEM, directed studies, English, library, math, music, PE and athletics, science, social studies, special education and world language. One- on-one meetings were also held for 30-45 minutes to hear perspectives and thoughts about the process. Additionally, the architects have been meeting with an executive steering committee, comprised of principals from both buildings, capital projects staff, deputy superintendent and representatives from different groups that have a “district” lens—custodial/operations, transportation, food service, CTE, special services. Student feedback was also gathered.

The following is a summary of the ed specs for the proposed program areas:

Area Teaching Stations General Instruction 58,850 45 Library 5,260 0 Physical Education 19,390 4 Administration and Student Services 5,640 0 Commons and Kitchen 12,070 0 Support Space 8,270 0 Building Total Net Area 109,480 49 Design Capacity 25 students/station .83 utilization factor Circulation/Walls 40,508 37% Building Total Gross Area 149,988 Square foot per student 140 Field Storage 500 Trash Enclosure 400 Total Building Area 150,888

The utilization factor of .83 is the same one used at the high schools. This factor means that a teacher could stay in a teaching station all day long, including the planning period, even though there are no students in the station during that planning period.

Earlier in the day, the following question was submitted by a board member on this topic. Q. Page 1-8: "Each facility will be designed to serve 1071 students in the 6th through 8th grade.” Is this really enough capacity for the foreseeable future? Put another way, what provision will be made in the design for future expansion should we outgrow the buildings?

2 Study Session Minutes – January 8, 2018

A. The building is being designed to provide expansion capability by going from a .83 utilization factor (one period per day each classroom is not scheduled with students, to allow the teachers to use their classroom for their planning period), to a 1.0 utilization factor if the enrollment requires classrooms to be assigned every period. Most schools today are designed to provide an alternative workspace for teachers when enrollment is high, because building full classrooms as an individual’s workspace is expensive, but teachers may use their classroom one period per day for their planning period when enrollment allows. We are designing to open the middle schools with teachers using their classroom for their planning period when the building opens, but classroom utilization may change over the life of the building as enrollment increases or decreases.

In answer to Director Fralick’s question about the estimated enrollment when the new schools open, Ms. Miller reported that it could be pretty close to the 1,071 target. Elementary enrollment currently is a little lower than predicted when the “high, medium, low” long-range enrollments projections were being studied. Also, there will be middle school students coming from outside the district. The 45 teaching stations are being planned for an average of 25 students per classroom; neighboring districts plan for 30 students per classroom. Director Potter stated he wanted to make sure there is a plan in place for expansion of these buildings as well as the high schools if at some point in the future, it was necessitated because of increasing enrollment.

Ms. Baibak reviewed the four possible schemes for Einstein Middle School: Scheme 1 is a two-story building that retains the existing track and field; parking and bus loading is on the north edge of the site; the academic area is on the quiet edge of the site; there is a good proximity of Commons and gymnasium to the fields; and has a parking capacity of 140 cars. Scheme 2 has the same layout as Scheme 1 except that it is a three-story building. Scheme 3 is also a three-story building; has visitor access from NW 195th Street and parking is in the center of the site; uses existing bus loading area along 3rd Avenue NW; the academic area is on the north edge of the site; excellent proximity of Commons and gymnasium to the fields; Commons’ student plaza faces track and field; and has a parking capacity of 140 cars. Scheme 4 is also a three-story building; has visitor access from NW 195th Street and parking in the center of the site; bus access from 3rd Avenue NW; the academic area is on the west edge of site with views of the Olympics; reasonable proximity of Commons and gymnasium to the fields; track and fields are located where the existing building is today and the academic building is located where the existing fields are today; Commons’ student plaza faces Hillwood Park; and has a parking capacity of 140 cars. Ms. Miller added that Shoreline Parks and Recreation Director, Eric Friedli, served as a valuable member on the Design Advisory Team for the middle schools. The City will have a consultant working on the plans for renovations to Hillwood Park. This opened up opportunities to discuss how these two projects could be planned and designed in order to best serve the community and make good use of the public dollars that will be going into both.

Mr. Mitiku inquired as to whether or not any of the schemes (other than Scheme 1) could be two- story buildings. Ms. Baibak responded that they tried to design Schemes 3 and 4 as two-story buildings but they were not able to due to the amount of area they had to make up for by relocating the fields. Discussions with the principals regarding a three-story building have included trying to come to an understanding of the necessary time for students between classes and teachers having access to the resources they need. Those particular details haven’t yet been worked out but the architects have shared what other school districts have done to accommodate those needs.

3 Study Session Minutes – January 8, 2018

Director Fralick expressed some concerns about the parking lot in Scheme 4 and the possibility of it being a bottleneck and a difficult spot for buses to turn around. Also, with the close proximity of the track and field to both 3rd Avenue NW and NW 195th Street, what kind of barriers would be in place to ensure the safety of our students, staff and bystanders in the event of errant drivers veering from the road. Both Ms. Baibak and Ms. Miller responded that as the process continues there would be discussions with traffic experts as well as testing, e.g., drivers practicing turnarounds in tight areas.

Mr. Brandt shared three schemes for Kellogg Middle School. There have also been discussions about moving the three tennis courts at the north end of the site to possibly the sound end, closer to Shorecrest High School. Part of the analysis on this topic relates to cost factors and housing of students, e.g. will the District save money in the long run if we were to rebuild something that was built recently because the area could be used for housing students instead of building temporary housing?

One thing they all have in common is a secured “back yard.” All the schemes have a plaza or gathering place for students, events, community; they have a main entry where the Commons, cafeteria, administration are all together and this allows staff to keep a watchful eye over the activities.

Scheme A – The Commons is centrally located between a south facing and north-facing courtyard. The south-facing courtyard can also become a public event plaza. The north facing academic courtyard is activated by educational programs on all sides and by outdoor circulation paths. A loop organization exposes all students to all programs every day.

Scheme B – This concept creates three outdoor spaces engaging the south, west and north. The classroom wings at the north end relate to the forest and form the end points. Entry can take place from the south (students) and the east (visitors, staff and pedestrians). The library bridges between athletics and a two-story science/CTE/art wing.

Scheme C – This concept creates two open courtyards relating to the west and east. All general classrooms have a north or south orientation to maximize natural daylighting. CTE, art and science spaces are located adjacent to each other for easy collaboration and are located on the ground floor with easy access to the exterior.

Ms. Crumbaker presented information on inclusive restrooms. “Using a is not a privilege; it is a right.” Many students will choose not to use a restroom if they feel that they are not being provided a safe place, and this impacts their direct ability to learn. In particular, individuals are affected the most as they are forced to make a choice between a male or female restroom. Inclusive design is not just about equality; but it is also about equity. It is not about providing the exact same solution for everyone; it is about providing the right solution for each person in order to create the same experience.

Unisex , unisex , -neutral restroom - An inclusive restroom is one where the signage is visibly identified with open, inclusive language, not identifying as either male or female. They are void of and have accommodations that are especially sensitive to the needs of a greater range of people.

Gender-inclusive washroom, all gender restroom, single occupant toilet room - Inclusive washroom facilities benefit transgender populations and other people who exist outside of the ; people with , the elderly, and anyone else who may require the assistance of someone of

4 Study Session Minutes – January 8, 2018 another gender; and parents who may wish to accompany their children to the washroom or toilet facility.

OSPI provides some information on what should be done but not necessarily on how to do it. “Public schools must allow students to use the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity. Any student—transgender or not—who requests greater privacy for any reason should be given access to an alternative restroom, such as a staff restroom or health office restroom. However, school staff cannot require a student to use an alternative restroom because of their transgender or gender non-conforming status.” http://www.k12.wa.us/Equity/GenderIdentity/default.aspx

The Shoreline School District website states the following: “Shoreline Schools will follow the state’s laws and guidance as outlined above and will continue to provide every student and family who walk through our doors with a safe and positive learning environment. Shoreline Schools benefits from a diverse learning environment that respects and embraces all cultures, customs and identities.” https://www.shorelineschools.org/Page/2277

The following areas are considered in inclusive design: • Privacy • Safety and security • Health, hygiene and acoustics • Signage conventions

A number of designs showing varying degrees of privacy were shared. As designers of buildings, Ms. Crumbaker stated that one thing they keep in mind is that the restroom is the number 1 place where bullying takes place. Restrooms are where adults aren’t allowed right now but also the place where the most misbehavior occurs. Safer strategies need to be in place for all students, which in turn, will benefit the community as a whole.

In terms of health, hygiene and acoustics, designers consider what support elements should be in place in each individual compartment to facilitate either a male or female gender. For example, male restroom stalls don’t typically include a sanitary disposal container, so for someone who is born as a female but identifies as a male, those individuals may not have access to those resources. So the question before designers in these early planning stages centers around what components are being put into the restrooms to support a wider range of people. Additionally, questions about signage might include whether or not to designate “girls” and “boys” or possibly to designate what’s actually in the restroom— versus .

There are two types of restrooms—distributed restrooms (two options) and assembly space restrooms. There are oftentimes the distributed restrooms--two separated, gendered facilities that are located near classrooms. The model in what was listed as Type 1 has, at the back of each gendered facility, one larger compartment with a toilet and handwashing component that provides for a more private experience within the gendered space. A larger more public handwashing area, which is open to the hallway, extends across both male and female sections. This strategy has been used for quite a few years to minimize bullying. The Type 2 model also has the two separated, gendered facilities but additionally contains a more private genderless “restroom for all” (including handwashing) at the front instead of the large handwashing area in Type 1. In the past, the “restroom for all” was locked and students or staff who wanted to use it had to obtain a special key and then return it. This current strategy conveys the message that you can use either the male or female side depending on your gender identity but if for any reason you feel uncomfortable you have the option of the more private experience.

5 Study Session Minutes – January 8, 2018

The second option of distributed restrooms is the “one at a time” model, which is typically seen as pairs of individual, non-gendered facilities with fully enclosed compartments and both visible and private handwashing options. With this model, there tends to be fewer fixtures in each unit but more units sprinkled throughout the building. The restrooms are closer to the students and thus minimize the time away from the classroom.

The second type of restrooming the architects are designing for is assembly space restrooms. These are in large gathering areas such as the gymnasium or the Commons where there are a lot more toilet fixtures than there are in the learning environment. Three different models (6, 7, 8) were shared with the Board. Assembly space restrooms may have multiple entrances and exits (which minimizes bullying opportunities and provides a sense of safety), full height walls and doors, overlapping jambs, occupancy indicators, appropriate ventilation and access to lavatories. Another priority often used is the inclusion of two private non-gendered compartments within the assembly space restrooms. For example, parents with multiple children attending their ’s play are afforded the opportunity to bring a stroller into the restroom.

Mr. Mount shared some policies, case studies and floor plans from other school districts, specifically, Madrona K-8 School in the Edmonds School District; Vashon High School from the Vashon Island School District; and Frank Wagner Elementary and Park Place Middle School from the Monroe School District.

Ms. Baibak shared an experience from Vashon High School. The school had been remodeled several years ago with the traditional, two gendered restrooms. A policy for transgender students was put in place in February 2016. Last spring, students took their initiative to the school board, which resulted in several changes throughout the school and an all gender restroom that opened in January 2018.

Kellogg Principal Heather Hiatt reported that students are excited about the projects. Concerns they have include those on the topics of privacy, height of doors, supervision; they love the two entries into the restroom and they like the idea of shared, public handwashing.

Einstein Principal Nyla Fritz reported that her students have similar concerns. She thought it was very important to note that these issues are not just concerns of transgender students but they are shared by all students. Students really like the idea of two ways in and out as well as the proximity to the classrooms. Key points to take away—good to have a variety of options and clear messaging by all adults in the school community, specifically in regard to “restroom for all,” is vitally important.

At the conclusion of the presentation, Ms. Miller announced that there would be another study session on February 12 on the topic of the middle school projects. She opened the discussion up for questions.

Director Jacobs stated that he would like to see the costs associated with the different options that were discussed at this meeting. Also, in regard to a private, locked restroom within close proximity to a classroom, are teachers expected to monitor the use of the restroom and whether or not the light in the restroom has been on for an extended period of time? If so, is that fair to the teacher who is also teaching a classroom of students? Are we exposing ourselves to any potential liability? He also stated a preference, from a practical standpoint, to retain urinals in the restrooms.

Ms. Miller asked if the Board would be interested in developing some sort of policy and/or procedure that lays out specifics. This is in light of the fact that the District is building multiple facilities at the same time and there is an interest in having a common, age-appropriate philosophy 6 Study Session Minutes – January 8, 2018 that is behind how we design. Along this line, Tanisha Brandon-Felder, Director of Equity and Family Engagement, is looking into what other districts/colleagues are doing in this area. Director Jacobs agreed that the District should have a clear policy to ensure that facilities are built with the intent that everyone feels safe, secure and ready to learn.

At the February 12 study session, more specific information on the Einstein and Kellogg designs will be brought to the Board.

Adjournment: 6:36 p.m.

David Wilson, School Board President

Attest: February 12, 2018

Rebecca L. Miner, Secretary to Board of Directors

7